Ballistic Snake Oil

A Snake Oil Salesman is someone who pedals a product with wondrous promises or performance they know to be false.  Made popular as a term (and profession) in the 19th century by traveling men with magic bottles of liquid that would cure all, the modern snake oil salesman is still performing the same disservice, only their offered list of products has expanded.  Truth is, there has always been con men willing to shuck wares that would solve any problem; sometimes they are just cheap imitations of quality products, other times they are completely fake products that could never hope to live up to the promises made in their advertising.

So whats snake oil these days?  Well, many things in the firearms industry but lets look at the lie that just wont die.  The RIP round.

The RIP round makes some bold claims about its effectiveness, its billed as "The Last Round You Will Ever Need" (they even trademarked that) and its in actuality the "Rapidly Invasive Projectile" is, in a word, crap.  I honesty thought that the round had received enough factually bad press for it to die, but then G2 Research doubled down on their nonsense and got in with a "firearms expert" over at Breitbart and wowed them the same way they did the rest of the shooting community that doesn't bother to learn about ballistics, they shot some fruit...oh, and some onions too.

Thats right, in a world where ballistic gel exists and is considered an acceptable medium for measuring the terminal performance of a bullet, G2 is hitting up Wholefoods for scientific medium.  Despite the fact that the RIP round violates pretty much all of the principles of what you need in a self-defense handgun round, its still out there and people are still buying it.  In case you are wondering, there are several factors to incapacitation and handguns generally do not perform well in any of them when compared to rifles.  What are these factors?

Penetration:  The depth to which a round penetrates the body

Permanent Cavity:  The diameter of the wound, once occupied by tissue that has been destroyed by the bullets path through the body.

Temporary Cavity:  The expansion of the permanent cavity due to the transfer of kinetic energy during the penetration of the round into the body (this is far more common in high velocity rifle rounds than it is in handgun rounds)

Fragmentation:  The breaking up of the bullet and secondary fragments (such as bone) impelled outward from the passage of the bullet.  Fragmentation is more common in rifle rounds than it is in lower velocity handgun rounds.

Round Placement: The intentional or incidental placement of rounds into the body in areas containing life essential organs in order to cause Central Nervous System failure.

Now the G2 rounds selling point is its fragmentation, whereas every other self-defense focused handgun round relies on penetration then expansion and there is a damn good reason for that; because it works.  Fragmentation is a feature best included in high velocity rounds.  A fragmenting rifle round does its business with both permanent and temporary cavity creation (and penetration).  Because of the significantly higher velocity afforded by rifle rounds, fragmentation is a desirable feature.  In a handgun round, its, well, a gimmick mostly.  Fragmenting handgun rounds arent a new thing. Patents for fragmenting designs go back to the early 1900s, yet they have not gained widespread popularity for a very good reason; they don't work; well, not to the degree the designers wish they did, anyway.

Helpful if you ever get attacked by
a pumpkin.

Why wont the G2 round work?  Simply put, because it isnt moving fast enough for its fragmenting features to be effective.  Handgun rounds incapacitate through penetration and permanent wound cavity.  For the best penetration and the largest wound cavity, a round that expands and retains its weight is desired.  Thats why the hollow point design has been improved, but never abandoned.  It works.  A round that fragments at low speeds will lose both its penetrating and permanent cavity causing ability.  The G2 "trocars" that split off like little talons look cool, but each of them becomes a very ineffective little bullet that has very little mass and because of that, does very little damage when compared to a traditional hollow point.  Instead of one potentially deep and wide wound cavity, you get an anemic wound cavity (ironically from the base of the bullet) and a collection of shallow trocar paths, which to me are more like ice pic stab wounds performed by a 1 year old child who just isnt into his work.  Its snake oil.

For as long as firearms have existed, we have been making them better and for all those making them factually better, there are those who just want to profit off the desire for an improvement without offering an actual one.  The best recent example would have to be the Le Mas round that was all the rage in 2003-2007.  Its "Blended Metal Technology" was supposed to change the very nature of ammunition.  Le Mas touted it as the future:

“This technology is best described as ‘blended metal programming’. It is not just another ‘shiny new bullet’ but a projectile payload, pre-programmed to sense varying rates of deceleration…Upon arrival in soft target medium the payload de-programs and, only then, expends 100% of its retained energy in the form of micro-fragments.”

Turns out, the Le Mas was a lie....no blended metals.

Well, anyone with an understanding of terminal ballistics can read that quote and laugh, but many, many people bought it, at least at first.  Le Mas made some huge claims and the shooting community at the time called their BS.  It took a few years but eventually those with actual experience with the round, or those with extensive backgrounds in ballistics overcame the "magic round" fever and Le Mas was out of business.  Of course, this was before the power of social media made expertise something that was easily discounted by the power of the hashtag and fruit shooting video.  Sometimes its like being stuck in a room with one man calmly giving the facts of the situation while 100 potatoes bang on pots with spoons.

 At the end of the day, science and facts seem to matter less to the low-information shooter who just wants to have the latest in tech whether it works or not.  The fact that a ballistics expert can give his professional opinion and have it discounted by a random screen name on Instagram tells me that people can sometimes see themselves as just as qualified to speak on a subject just because they can talk to the same audience, qualifications be damned.

As for G2; I hope they honestly believe their RIP round is superior, because the alternative is that they know it is snake oil and they know that people are buying it to defend their lives with an inferior ammunition and they are okay with it and im not okay with that.

Now G2 is moving on to rifle rounds, time will tell if they are actually effective or just more smoke and mirrors, but the desire for a better bullet will always see upstart companies push "revolutionary" products to market and cause those who dont listen to the experts, or dont bother to even see what they are saying, to spend their money on magic that doesnt yet exist. 

My letter to the ATF regarding the proposed M855/SS109 ban.

Here, in entirety is my letter to the ATF regarding the proposed amendment to the 1968 GCA.  I had enough people ask what I put in mine that I decided to publish it here.

This letter serves to notify all concerned of my deep opposition to the proposed ban on M855 and SS109 ammunition detailed in the BATFE White Paper titled:

“ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHERCERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)”

As a proposed amendment to the 1968 GCA, this ban if implemented will remove M855 and SS109 from the citizen market, the reasoning for this detailed by the ATF is “To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute. The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Having served in law enforcement for nearly 10 years in addition to serving as a firearms instructor and training developer, I find that this proposed amendment to the 1968 GCA both an egregious mistake and a foolish attempt to further tighten already nonsensical firearms laws.  As the ATF believes that removal of the M855 and SS109 will help prevent law enforcement deaths as both rounds can penetrate common law enforcement soft body armor, I can only point out that many other government agencies including the FBI and the National Institute for Justice (specifically the  NIJ Ballistic Resistance Standard, 0101.06) state that any 5.56mm or .223 round, even the most common 55 grain FMJ can penetrate the level II and level IIIA armor so banning what is considered by the ATF to be an “armor piercing” round, the M855/SS109, is misinformed, disingenuous or improperly researched.  As the ATF has extensive existing research and capability for additional research, this move is both curiously timed and disturbingly ill conceived.

Furthermore, when referring to the FBIs Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted annual report,   of the 535 Officers feloniously killed 2003-2012 (the most current statistics) only 92 were killed with rifles and of those killed with rifles, only 5 were killed by a rifle chambered in .223/5.56mm.  It’s also telling that of the 535 officers killed, 21 died as a direct result of a body armor penetration (identified as the round fired exceeding the vests protection rating) and only one of total body armor failure.  Looking strictly at statistics, a ban on M855/SS109 does not equal a common sense approach to officer protection or a wise use of tax payer money.

 If anything, the ATF’s proposal looks more and more like an attempt to remove a threat that doesn’t factually exist from a round that is used overwhelmingly more in sport, hunting and training than in felony attacks on peace officers.  While the round is more dangerous for those facing an assailant armed with a rifle chambered to fire it, specifically the identified and imagined threat from an AR pistol, there simply are no facts to back up a ban on the M855/SS109 for the reasons stated and banning a certain type of bullet based on what may happen is not common sense nor a move meeting even the weakest burden of proof for justification.

To identify the M855/SS109 as “armor piercing” is to label it incorrectly and shows little understanding of modern ballistics in rifle calibers.   These rounds are no more dangerous (in fact, remarkably less so) than the dangers presented by law enforcement vehicle pursuits.   The loss of any life is a tragedy, and being in law enforcement I know the anger and loss felt when an officer is killed in the line of duty, however this proposed ban will not bring back the 5 officers killed by .223/5.56mm rounds and will do exactly nothing to prevent a future crime.  This ban will directly affect the citizen shooting population and ammunition companies (and their employees) by removing one of the most economical and versatile rounds on the market.  The ATF would better serve the shooting public and the Second Amendment by conducting a full review of their regulations and removing those that no longer (or never did) apply to the modern world.

It is also worth noting that the “sporting purpose” clause as cited by the ATF is a government manifested category that is loosely interpreted and boldly draconian as it does not address the very real nature of ammunition being used for self-defense purposes as well, which would not fall into a “sporting” or “hunting” category.  Given the sheer amount of ammunition on the market that is identified by the manufactures as being “self-defense” focused in its design, the ATF is focusing on an imagined threat while circumventing, in my opinion, the constitutionally protected rights of the citizenry.

As a law enforcement officer this proposed amendment will not make me any safer; its lip service only.

I honestly hope that more educated positions will prevail and this proposal will be abandoned in favor of an informed approach to correcting not only this situation, but previously modified, amended or arbitrarily changed regulations so that the American public can enjoy all the freedoms intended to them.  It should not be the ATF’s mission to constantly introduce new and more restrictive laws/regulations; rather it should be their duty to see the rights of the people protected by monitoring wise and fact based changes that reflect both the spirit of the Second Amendment and its specific wording.

Sincerely,

Aaron Cowan

Ammunition Scare? The low-information shooter, letting someone else do the work.

So the ATF is considering an amendment and/or reinterpretation of the 1968 GCA to cover SS109 and M855 as an "armor piercing" round and of course once this news made its way around the internet, Cheaper Than Dirt wasted no time in pricing gouging the ever loving hell out of panic buyers.  Currently on Cheaper than dirt, a 900 round can of 62 Grain green tip is a "bargain" at $840.00, or it would be if it was not already sold out.  Anyone willing to pay that price, well, good for them.  Me, im not willing to give Cheaper Than Dirt any money, especially after their price gouging during the 2013/14 panic buying following Sandy Hook where a USGI mag could be had for the low price of $99.  A quick look at Ammo Seek shows that there are a few people price gouging, but none to the full douchebag level of CTD.

CTD is making a killing off the ammo scare market, supply and demand writ large.  If CTD was a person, he would look like this:

But can we blame them?  Every educated shooter knows that there are many shooters that are of the low-information crowd and are susceptible to easy panic over any little thing.  If the ATF went after the Magpul BAD lever, there would be a run on them (and CTD would sell you one for $200).  If the ATF suddenly decided the sling on a rifle was something that needed to be banned, a CTD sale would run you $400 and grandmothers nationwide would not be able to knit for a lack of yarn (we would also see the birth of a "MOLON LABE" sling market).

The sad truth as it is apparent to me is that the panic buy will always be a thing for the same reason that UTG and Sightmark are in business making cheap accessories that some are willing to put their life behind.  There is a distinct difference between cheap and inexpensive and this difference is lost on the low information crowd.  If the SS109 and M855 is indeed going to be banned from citizen purchase, what does spending $840.00 for 900 rounds of it really do for you?  Sure, it provides you with a much higher resale option down the road, much like "high cap" magazine prices during the AWB but then SS109 and M855 becomes a non-renewable commodity with an ever-increasing price as supply is reduced or removed from the market by ammunition hoarders.  Do you need to sit on a few thousand rounds of ammo?  Absolutely; but why didn't you have it already?  If the SS109 or M855 was the best damn round to have for use on two-legged predators (it isn't), shouldn't you have already built an ammunition throne in front of your DTOM flag?

The low-information shooter would be better served taking an interest in helping to prevent the ban instead of helping the owners of CTD build mattresses out of money to watch Breaking Bad on.  The ATF is still taking comments on the proposed change, its as easy as writing a quick email but I honestly have to wonder how many of those panic buying up the SS109 and M855 are also taking the time to drop a well though out email to the ATF to oppose their latest attempt at a Clinton Era flashback?

If we only depend on organizations like the NRA, GOA or USCCA (among others) to speak for us, we run the risk of getting some of, or none of what we want.  Is it any different than giving a dollar a day to a non-profit promising you letter and pictures from a child in Africa you sponsor? Sure, it will make you feel better the next time you see a commercial with the saddest kid they could find in the village but the amount of direct involvement you have is akin to yelling at the chick in the horror movie to not go upstairs; yell all you want, she wont hear you.  Theres action, and the appearance of action and for some they are one in the same.

Buying up all the green tip you can find may give you an economic edge if such a ban does occur, though what are you actually doing to try and prevent it?  I know, "The ATF wont listen to me."  Perhaps you are right, but the "theres nothing I can do" attitude is not how we are supposed to do shit here in America.  If you are not fired up over the increasingly usurpatious actions of our current administration (and those already passed), then you really aren't on board as a responsible gun owner.  We are not built from men who took the easy road, nor men who huddled in angst under the hopes that someone else would fight their fight for them.  Hope is not an actionable plan, its the same as wishing to win the lottery without so much as buying a ticket.

Did you know:  Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished amateur
rapper who used to dominate Open Pulpit Night at Gadsby's Tavern? 

So send an email; take the time to write out a well composed argument to the ATFs latest bullshit and hit send.  If all we do is share memes and macros with quotes from our forefathers, presidents and Ted Nugent in response to the governments encroachment on our rights, we are yelling our complaints into a well that always says back what we want to hear.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

UPDATE:  PER Cheaper Than Dirt, the Ammunition pricing on 900 rounds of 62 Grain Green Tip previously linked in this blog has been removed and according to CTD was a pricing error, not an attempt to price gouge the shooting public.

ATF: Doubling Down on Stupid

So today I get pinged by a few people on the BATFE taking steps to ban SS109 and M855 5.56mm ammunition because of its armor piercing properties.  I gave the official position a read and have thus determined that the ATF has hit rock bottom on the potato scale and, finding the bottom not low enough, are requesting a shovel to go deeper. Because the individual writing the ATF white paper now found on the ATF site probably got their start writing dramatic romance thrillers, the paper opens as such.

To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by
ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute.

Never mind that most common ammunition available for rifles in the .223/5.56mm family will burn through IIIA body armor like Eric Holder through incriminating memos, the ATF continues;

 The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck (never actually been on one) so I'm pretty familiar with the text of the Second Amendment and nowhere in it does it say anything about hunting or sporting.  The "Hunting and Sporting" clause was added in the rambling text of the 1968 Gun Control Act, a law prompted by the assassination of JFK, signed in by Lyndon B. Johnson and endorsed by then NRA Executive Vice President, Franklin Orth, who was quoted as saying "the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with."  NRA feelings aside, the hunting or sporting purpose has become a catch-all piece of the legislation that the ATF continues to use to address gun control, ammunition and the war against our rights to own so-called "Assault rifles."  Never mind that such rifles are used in as much as 2% of crimes .

Now, the GCA addresses "armor piercing" ammunition in Section 17:

 (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

So...handguns then?  Well due to the new popularity of AR pistols, they are going after some of the most common (and sometimes most affordable) 5.56mm ammunition because, as they put it;

More specifically the characteristics of the handgun or handguns in which a specific armor piercing projectile may be used will generally determine that projectile’s “likely use” in the general community. When the only readily available handgun that can accept a cartridge containing the projectile is objectively and primarily sporting, it may reasonably be inferred that the likely use of that projectile will also be objectively and primarily sporting. Conversely, when a handgun’s objective design is not limited to primarily sporting purposes, such as handguns designed to be carried and concealed, it may be reasonably inferred that ammunition capable of use in such handguns is unlikely to be used primarily for sporting purposes. 

Meanwhile, at Cheaperthandirt.com

As you can plainly see, the ATF is playing it loose and making clairvoyant assumptions with the "intent" of "pistols" that can chamber the SS109 or M855 round.  By defining "sport" and "hunting" they are effectively pretending that "self-defense" doesn't exist; which is strange considering the number of rounds marketed (and designed) specifically for those purposes.  Since the ATF is going the handgun route with their attempt at an ammunition ban, the irony lies in the fact that there are hundreds of handgun rounds designed to do maximum damage for the purposes of self-defense, though they aren't of rifle caliber so they will not penetrate common LE body armor.  Why there has not been more of a fight against the "hunting and sporting" nonsense is beyond me; though I would actually be fine with the guidelines if they read "hunting, sporting or self-defense purposes."  Perhaps its time to start a petition for amending the 1968 GCA and any other nonsensical federal law or regulation that contains that draconian and ignorant phrase.  I cant say for certain, but it appears the ATF has taken a very focused interest in the AR pistol market and are going after the low hanging fruit first, which is both ammo and the Sig Brace.

The NRA is speaking on this, well, they posted a short informational about the pending amendment but didn't comment on what they would be doing to help prevent it and/or fight its implementation.   If you want to get involved (and you should), you can contact the ATF and make comments.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Flashlights: Just do it one way?

There are enough opinions on any given piece of gear or technique that picking the right one comes down to either what appeals to you or how much research you are willing to put into it.  The thing is, there often is no "one way" but multiple ways and multiple tools that address the same job.  Opinion rules for the most part, hopefully its an informed and trained opinion.

I recently saw an exchange over handheld Vs weapon mounted lights and which to use.  My opinion is that the question was too broad.  Use for what? Should be included but that's just my opinion. Some spoke about weapon mounted being the way to go, others were all for a handheld and each side had reasons.  One of the most common detractors against a weapon mounted light is that it draws fire. It sure can; so can a hand held, a bic lighter, a cell phone screen or any other source of light in the dark.

Can.

I can get in a shooting.  So im not leaving the house.

Wait, I can get in a shooting at home, so im leaving the house.

Wait....

Just because something can occur does not mean it will, and throwing your hands up in the air when the can  realization strikes is the quickest path to being totally unprepared.  Training and proper practice help give us tools, not plans.  There is actually very little within our control when it comes to self defense but those few things we do control are some of the most important factors towards staying safe and effective.  Our gear, and how versatile we are in the use of that gear is one of the most important factors under our control.  I believe that the software is the most important part of self defense, but the software needs adaptable hardware.

Just a bit of history.

The Seely Light; available in
Call of Duty: Olde Tyme Warfare

So weapon lights can draw fire.  Despite this they are continually used by individuals who get into gunfights for a living (the military) and by individuals who may encounter a gunfight as part of their job (law enforcement).  The first handheld flashlight was patented in 1902 by Conrad Hubert, the first known weapon mounted light was patented by George Seely in 1911. Since then we have seen continued advancement in the technology; law enforcement has used weapon lights since the 1960s, the NYPD arguably being the first.  Today, mainly thanks to the innovation and miniaturization of the weapon light by Laser Products starting in the 1970s/1980s (which became what we know now as Surefire) the weapon light is common gear for the majority of work rifles and handguns.

So if the weapon light can draw fire, why is it used?  It sure sounds like its potentially a horrible idea yet its considered essential equipment to professionals and personal defense-minded individuals everywhere.

Doesnt need a weapon light, handheld or even a weapon.
Not because he was born in and molded by the dark
but because hes a fictional character.

Could the distrust of a weapon light be an issue of training? I would say yes.  We know that all light can draw fire, which is partially responsible for there being so many variations of handheld light use with a firearm; yet the potential catastrophic use of weapon mounted lights because they can draw fire has not caused the shooting world to throw them in the trash.  The fact is, proper light use minimizes the chances of the light being used against you in a use of force and the alternative is to...do what, exactly?  In low/no light situations, you need a positive target ID and you get it with light.  Just knowing how to turn a light on/off isn't being trained in how to use it for self defense.  I know which end the bullets come out of the gun, and how to make that happen, does that alone make me trained in self defense shooting?  No.

Doesnt need a light because he is the light.
Everyone else does.

Weapon lights are great tools for confronting known threats or entering into situation where there is a high likelihood of only encountering things deserving of gunfire.  Outside of that, the weapon mounted light is more decoration than help. A weapon mounted light only helps me when the gun is out and the gun is only out when there is a reasonable expectation of using it.  I can not deter a potential threat with a weapon light.  If I am standing in line at an ATM at night or walking to my car in low light and observe an individual lurking in the shadows with no obvious purpose, how does the light on my holstered weapon help me?  It cant.  How would the handheld light in my pocket or on my belt help me?  I can have it in hand, the light itself is not recognized by polite society as a weapon, and I can illuminate that questionable individual and ask a polite question:

"Do you need help with something, sir?"

A quick flash to their face, then pulling the beam down to their chest.  I have already done much to control the situation and diffuse a potential violent encounter.  I no longer look like food.  I am alert and the potential bad guy knows this.  By pulling the beam out of his face I am aware but not confrontational and I am leaving them with an out.  Mindlessly drilling them in the eyes with the beam during the exchange could actually cause an escalation.  A purposeful flash of his eyes ruined his night vision and gave me a second or more of superior situation awareness.  This can easily be apologized for while I maintain ready light control.

No...just dont.

Already, the handheld light is a superior tool.  If I need my weapon, the handheld doesn't suddenly lose its usefulness.  There are issues with shooting grip while using a handheld just like there are issues using a weapon mounted light while shooting.  Its a more complicated procedure that is made easier through practice, not academic debate on this vs that.

Circa 1965 Breeding weapon light; we
have been doing this for a while now.

Any and all light can draw fire, supposing there is fire to be drawn.  Not all bad guys use guns just like not all situations escalate to a point where things can be predicted.  Some assaults are literal surprises and very little can be prepared for.  Personally I prefer a handheld light because in my every day carry world I use that light for many administrative and deterrence tasks.  The weapon light is there, waiting, but the handheld is helping me not to need it.  I guess I will never know how many (if any) violent situations the use of a handheld light helped me avoid.  I'm good with that.  At work, its mostly a weapon light affair because my intent changes.

There are a few things where one way is the best way, maybe even where one tool is the best tool.  Light isnt one of those situations.  Have both, or at the very least a handheld.  The only situation I could say where a weapon light is far superior is home defense and only then because of the situation.  For those that say you cant illuminate an unknown threat with a weapon light without muzzling that unknown person I would suggest a reality based low-light class focused on self-defense, not burning ammo.  Splash lighting, especially indoors, is a very useful technique that keeps us from muzzling things with WMLs until we want/need to.  Its a trained technique and there doesnt seem to be much knowledge of it outside of those who have been trained how to do it, which means those of you who have been trained how to do it are letting your buddies/loved ones down by not passing it along.

So weapon light or handheld?  Both.  Do flashlights draw fire?  They can.  The risk far outweighs the reward when used correctly.

If you want to read more on my approach to weapon/light use you can check out the two part series I did for Breach Bang Clear: Part 1 and Part 2. Or the two part I did for Monderno Part 1 and Part 2.

And since the question has been asked, here is my feeling on the Taurus Curve.

Just dont.

Brady Sues Online Retailers: The Anti-Gun Machine Grinds on.

On September 16, 2014 The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, also known as "A group of people opposed to certain kinds of violence, under certain conditions done with certain inanimate objects" filed a lawsuit against four online retailers for selling ammunition, body armor and tear gas canisters to James Holmes, who you well know is set to resume his trial for the 2012 shooting in Aurora, Co.   The suit is against Lucky Gunner , Sportsmans Guide , Bullet Proof body Armor HQ and BTP Arms.

The lawsuit alleges that these retailers are responsible for being clairvoyant mediums or for employing said mediums and are required to screen the aura and psyche of on line shoppers before their purchases are made in order to best decide if the private transaction should be allowed to proceed.  Okay it doesn't actually say that, but according to the brain trust at Brady Campaign:

“A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project and co-counsel for Sandy and Lonnie Phillips. “If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips have brought this lawsuit to make sellers of lethal arms and military equipment use reasonable care. ” 

AYFKM?

That, by the way, is the dumbest thing I will read today and I just left CNN.com.  Brady wants us to believe that retailers have a moral and legal culpability in the sale of their products; basically a duty to care if these products are used in the commission of crimes even if no malice or conspiracy can be proven (or is even suspected).  To some this might make sense, I mean James Holmes killed 12 and inured over 60 in the now infamous theater shooting; he used an AR-15 (and a shotgun and handgun) though its common knowledge that "assault rifle" use in crimes is in the 1%-2% range.  Brady has been on the anti "assault rifle" rage train for years, but its a politically untenable issue so it seems now they are taking a play from the Michael Moore play book and going after retailers.  Only Moore just wanted them to not sell ammo, Brady Campaign wants Injunctive Relief  against the defendants, which will essentially put them out of business if the courts find in Brady's favor. Now, this is already pretty ridiculous but after reading the complaint, there are some downright ridiculous allegations that would be funny if this wasn't so serious.  Consider the following:

"Defendants sell combat supplies, such as military-style high-capacity ammunition
magazines, ammunition, and body armor, that can be and have been used in numerous criminal shootings, including horrific mass attacks on humanity. At all relevant times they were well aware of the foreseeable risk that their products would be used in such attacks, especially if they failed to exercise reasonable care in their business practices."

This collection of words, no doubt transcribed from cocktail napkins at a personal injury attorney convention at the airport HoJo basically places all blame on objects, and people who sell those objects instead of on the man responsible for the actual crime.  

"It was highly foreseeable to Defendants that their potential customers included persons with criminal intent, including persons such as James Holmes, who was bent on committing a mass assault."

Here we have the Brady lawyers demanding the physic nonsense, or at the very least having an unrealistic expectation that the defendants could have possibly known anything at all about what Holmes was planning.  Oh, and my favorite,

"In fact, in the months leading up to the attack, James Holmes engaged in a pattern of bizarre behavior. He acted, looked, and expressed himself in a way that raised grave suspicions about his dangerousness and mental stability, so much so that during the same time period that the Defendants sold Holmes thousands of rounds of ammunition and other combat supplies, a local shooting club did not admit Holmes because his behavior was so disturbing and suspicious."

Again, the suit wants to hold the retailers liable for not being fucking psychic and while just inferred, not invading the privacy of their customers.  You literally could not make shit like this up.  Oh, it gets worse.

"Defendants established and operated businesses which attracted — and catered to — dangerous persons such as Holmes, and yet they failed to implement any reasonable safeguards to prevent dangerous people from obtaining high-capacity ammunition magazines, thousands of rounds of ammunition, body armor, and tear gas, and by which Holmes, and dangerous people like him, could buy such materiel online, without any human interaction or screening."

Basically, Brady wants to George Orwell your ass and they want it in a rough, 1984 style.  This case creates a dangerous precedent, and not just for those in the firearms industry.  Auto manufacturers could be sued because drunk driving, Pharmacies because prescription abuse and maybe even farmers because heart disease.  Im sure none of you are strangers to ridiculous lawsuits, but its rare to see one so potentially damaging while at the same time being so bat-shit smearing insane.  The Brady Campaign for the war on logic isnt shy about filing "dem feels-and money also" motivated lawsuits and this certainly wont be the last time they decide to ride a tragedy to a sociopolitical goal, though this is the most troubling and fundamentally stupid action ive seen them take in a long time.  Even though no one can expect that the defendants are liable, they are going to have to spend a great deal of money defending this and that alone may put them out of business.  I have some on-line shopping to do now to support each of them.