Just Read the FM's?

American Mercenary wrote an excellent post. Army Field Manuals, like any other sort of reference tend to be geared toward people with a working understanding of the topic. They are meant to help make sure you do not miss a step, not to teach you something from the ground up.

What I am getting at is that a guy with a background like AM or myself could get a bit rusty in a staff job then pick up a Ranger Handbook and one of FM 7-8 and quickly reorient ourselves to light infantry tactics. In contrast someplace I have a Chilton Manual for a '76-79 (or whatever the specific years of the book covered) Chevy half ton truck plus a reasonable variety of hand tools. That doesn't mean I can change out that particular truck's carburetor or give it a tune up. Joe Mechanic could take that Chilton Manual plus my tools then do all sorts of stuff to that truck because he has a frame of reference. However give Joe Mechanic a Ranger Handbook, FM 7-8, an AR-15 and a fighting load and he'll do about as good of a job with it as I would taking that engine apart.

Unfortunately some folks without a frame of reference think they can learn from manuals or other references. A few can, we call them geniuses or savants or whatever. That being said for the 1 in a million who can learn Jui Jitsu/ Piano/ Small Engine repair from a book there are the other 999,999 who cannot. Most people simply are unable to learn that way and need some sort of more organized instruction. Those who fail to realize this simply do not know what they do not know.

Anyway those are my thoughts on that.

Pic Post

I really hope this one ends badly for the folks of Westboro Baptist. Those hate mongering assholes have been screwing around at funerals asking to get stomped for years. If there is any ambiguity in my statement I really hope a mob of angry Slayer fans inflict seriously bodily harm to every member of this protest old enough to legally drive a car.

Quote of the Day and Discussion

“Everyone has a plan – until they get punched in the face.”
-Mike Tyson

Some years ago I had the occasion to be in a situation where a bunch of people got punched in the face within a controlled environment. Some of them were people who would not otherwise find such circumstances and others were guys like me for whom it was just another Friday. Blood lust aside it was very interesting. You could tell without a doubt who was getting popped for the first time by the way they reacted. Never trust anybody who hasn't been punched in the face.

The implied task is that you need to become accustomed to violence under controlled circumstances now while the opportunity to learn before it matters still exists. Get used to it while you can.

I am not going to be writing a post today. All of a sudden it got late. Will crank out something good tomorrow unless I don't.

Thermal Crossover

Definition: (DOD) The natural phenomenon which normally occurs twice daily when temperature conditions are such that there is a loss of contrast between two adjacent objects on infrared imagery.

In Laymens terms twice a day the optical technology gap between guys with iron sighted AK's and dudes with ten grand in cool technology is leveled. Folks who figured out when that time was and took advantage could take advantage of that situation. Some guys I know were regularly mortared at just the right time (thermal crossover) in Iraq. They never really figured out a good way to deal with it.

Figured that little tidbit might just interest a few of you.

Targeting Families

AM wrote an interesting post that talked about this. He hits on the rather important point that it just doesn't work. This is not how folks win wars.

AM's post was about cause and effect. If you hurt somebody's family they will have a serious vendetta against you and might not value the lives of people around you very highly. Even in pretty ruthless criminal organizations they generally leave families off limits. This is largely for functional reasons that even scumbags have people who they love and nobody wants to go down that road. Think about it for a minute. If somebody hurt my family I wouldn't have much to lose and the life expectancies of people around them would be low. Lots of folks probably think the same way.

Something Matthew Bracken touched on is death squads formed by cops or various paramilitary types. Basically it goes like this. Some cops or whatever are doing their jack booted thing. They face some effective reprisals by some guerrilla types. Instead of waiting to get shot up by some rednecks with deer rifles the cops decide to get pro active off the books. They know more or less who the people they are up against, especially in a small town or a place with good proactive intelligence gathering. These cops get together off work and do the old snatch and drag to the woods to kill in a ditch routine. Maybe it is unofficially sanctioned by their bosses in an "I know you know, you know I know but we don't talk about it" sort of way or maybe it's just that no cops look very hard when a rabidly pro freedom gun shop owner vanishes. Also it isn't exactly too hard for a group of cops to make sure an investigation doesn't go anywhere.

Of course the G types are doing the same thing more or less; it might have developed on it's own or as a response to the regime death squads but it doesn't really matter.. They quickly realized that instead of waiting for a bunch of guys with body armor and automatic weapons to stack outside the door at 2 am it's better to get their own group of guys and hit some houses of their own, snag a guy coming out of a bar or whatever.

This is bad but it happens with almost predictable regularity. Look at the various dirty wars in South America throughout the 70's and 80's or Iraq circa 2006-2008ish. Like they say history doesn't repeat itself but sure rhymes.

I do not think that lethally targeting families is a good idea first because of the slippery ethical slope it puts you on (pretty quick you're bombing random civilians Bagdad 2008 style to destabilize the security situation) secondly because of reprisals and third because it doesn't gain the desired effects. I just think it is a bad idea.

That does not mean you should not target families (non lethally). Shunning is very powerful in isolated insular communities which a lot of small towns sort of resemble. Imagine a guys morale if his wife can't get her hair cut, the family has to drive 90 miles to find a doctor or dentist, the grocery store stacks the canned stuff on top of the bread every time, the son can't make a friend to save his life, the daughter isn't asked to the dance despite being a beautiful and charming girl, the bank messes up their account causing overdraws or freezing their money almost weekly, the mechanic won't look at the family car, you get the idea. Pretty quickly that guy is going to move or find another job.Shunning takes a high percentage of the community.

However there are still things a smaller group can do. Not much says you aren't welcome like burning someones house down. Also that has the benefit that you can find a time when it is unoccupied and not harm anybody. A group that has a reputation for action gets to the point where they don't even have to do these things. They just need to drop a night letter saying to leave or they will do whatever. Worst case if the night letter is accompanied by a Godfather style animal head it will probably be taken seriously.

Anyway those are my .02 cents on that.

Thoughts on Insurgencies 7: How They Happen, Advantages and Disadvantages

An insurgency could be defined as an armed competition for the heart of the people and thus power. Almost without exception insurgencies involve at least one non state actor otherwise they would just be a war.

Insurgencies develop when a group of people feels they are facing injustice (real or perceived) and either cannot or do not want to participate in the main stream political process. That they do not have the numbers/ influence to achieve their goals through normal political channels leads these groups to take up arms. I do not find ethics or value judgements to be particularly useful here. Many groups in the middle east as well as Africa had really legitimate cases to pick up arms but happened to be Islamic and or Communist a holes.

Folks like to talk about the white Afrikaners and Rhodesia's.  A small minority holding all of the power and most of the wealth in a system with very limited mobility is a good way to make the other people angry. That the small minority happen to be a different color than the poor majority is a real problem. Also it makes for a very good case as to why that system should be changed through violence. Of course sooner or later the many will question why they are so blatantly and brutally held down by the few. That the commie's would give these disenchanted groups indoctrination, training and weapons was just icing on the cake.

I cannot say it is a 1-1 thing but for insurgencies to really have a chance to take roots a lot of people need to be pretty unhappy as happy people do not fight their own government. The government needs to be incapable or unwilling to address their real or perceived issues that are making people so unhappy. Governments that are healthy have the right combination of being aware and able to address, if just in a token way peoples needs and having a viable security apparatus to keep the lid on things. So we have a couple conditions. We need a fairly large group of people that are really unhappy with their government and a government that cannot or will not address their needs and or shut them down with the security apparatus.

Now we have these two (or more but let's stick with two right now) opposing groups with a bunch of normal folks stuck in the middle. The government wants to maintain the status quo and the insurgents/ guerrillas want to be in charge or have some freedom or see land distribution in their favor or whatever. The government could be broken down into foreign or local. Foreign being the classic usually European Empire (say the Brit's in Malaysia, Kenya or whatever) and local (Rhodesia back in the day or Syria right now are fine examples). The difference is notable in that foreign or predominantly foreign (there is always a proxy force) forces have far less of a stomach for a long fight. It is pretty natural that folks will eventually give up on keeping/ taking over Nowhereistan and go back home. On the other hand and equally naturally people will fight tooth and nail to stay in power at home. This is why you see a lot more 10, 20 or 30 year conflicts between the local (national or state) regime and people who do not like them than with foreigners from far away. It is like a semi sporting fight between casual acquaintances and a brawl in a dark alley with a stranger. One ends when somebody gets hurt and the other ends when somebody is crippled or dead.

Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. Rather obviously the government has men, money, weapons, technology and pretty much every conventional warfare advantage you could name. On the other hand the insurgents/ guerrillas have some advantages also. One is low expectations. That they do not have to win but just have to convince people they are not losing is obviously an advantage. It is kind of like a handicap in golf. 

Another advantage is adaptability. It takes a conventional force like the Russians or the Americans forever to adopt a new weapons system. If we started now I would probably retire before a genuinely new weapon was widely fielded. On the other hand if a group of guerrillas finds that they need say a .50 caliber rifle they just need to get their hands on a few and train some dudes to use them. It could potentially be done in weeks. The same for new explosive charges or uniforms, radios or tactics.

Rather obviously guerrillas need weapons, ammunition, stuff and money. Money is probably the most important as it can readily be turned into the other stuff. We could break guerrilla funding sources into three basic streams. 1) Donations typically large foreign donations by sympathetic groups/ nations is pretty simple. A country such as both the US and USSR during the cold war or group such as Gulf State extremists supporting the Mujaheddin and then Taliban in Afghanistan and sympathetic Americans funding the IRA comes in with big bucks. Smaller donations can also be a consideration. 2) Various illegal or semi legal dealings such as drugs in the case of the Taliban and many South American Groups, the IRA selling guns and all manner of jerks and thugs robbing banks, printing fake money and running various scams. 3) Illegal taxes and forced donations from businesses and everyday folks. Either they are taking stuff without paying for it or making people make 'donations' or whatever. Unless people are sympathetic or they are providing some services in return this tends to make people unhappy though just about all insurgent and guerrilla groups do it.

Obviously it is a lot easier to conduct an insurgency if you are flush with cash. Groups with cash can get whatever sort of weapons they want, explosives, pay bribes and all sorts of fun stuff. This means that groups are hitting funding techniques 2 and 3 pretty hard. The difference between an insurgent group that is actively participating in the global gun/ drug/ smuggling/ etc trade and a big nasty gang like the Russian Mafia or MS-13 can get blurry. To me it comes back to the groups primary purpose. MS-13 are scary international gangsters to make money and get respect while the Taliban sell opium to fund their fight against the US and goals to regain regional domination or whatever.

As to equipment unless a group is getting  regular resupply via a friendly force or purchases they will by necessity use the same weapons systems as the government they are fighting. Having your own weapons, set up how you like and zeroed, in those calibers/ systems just makes sense. Even if you hate a system having one set up and put away for a rainy day is smart.

Well I am bored of writing now so it is time to wrap this up.









 

Reader Question- Night Vision

C sent me a note asking about night vision. "I am not ready to spend the coin on PVS-14s like you did but was wondering if you have any thoughts on gen 1 stuff.  My goals are modest-- (1) get familiar with the stuff, (2) check out activity in the back yard up to 50 meters or so, (3) move through terrain without visible light.  The ability to use with a weapon would be a plus.  Yukon has some positively rated gen 1 weapon sights for $400 (http://www.amazon.com/Yukon-Titanium-1-5x42-Night-Vision/dp/B001C74GM8/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) but I don't love flagging everything I want to look at.  I also have an AIMPOINT PRO which is NVG compatible; in that case would a helmet-rig make more sense?"

TOR here: Sorry Man but to be honest I do not know. There is a picture comparison of the generations of night vision put out by a big manufacturer that you can see by going here and scrolling down about halfway. Somebody made a video comparing Gen 1 and Gen 3 that you can see here. I cannot personally vouch for these but they seem legit to me.

As to Gen 1 stuff. Broadly speaking you definitely get what you pay for. This is a great "buy once, cry once" candidate. That being said some folks are not able (or willing) to spend the equivalent of an OK used car on a NOD. Both the spend more and the 'but I can't' rabbit holes can be followed if you want. Personally I decided to suck it up and make the purchase of a NOD. I use them at work and know what they can do. The massive advantage they bring is worth the cost to me. What was right for me might not be right for others. I have used some older stuff on the .mil side, can't remember what exactly, it was a long time ago, but it was complete junk. I wish I could spend a night testing a dozen common models all the way from Gen 1-3 but the opportunity has not presented itself. It is almost certainly better than nothing but how much better and if it is worth the money I cannot say.

 You can probably get some or most of what you want done with the kind of model you mentioned, which I thought about getting myself but decided against it for reasons I cannot remember, though they will be degraded in relation to a more expensive set. I am trying my best to help but really don't know. [If anybody with experience using modern Gen 3 stuff also has experience with commercial off the shelf Gen 1 stuff like the model mentioned and is interested in writing about it please leave a comment or contact me at theotherryan@yahoo.com.]

Now we can go to something I know more about. Unless you are using night vision as a dedicated sniper setup for varmit hunting the right answer is to mount the night vision on your head, probably using some sort of helmet. The reason for this is that you are going to do a whole bunch of stuff with night vision that requires your eyes but doesn't need a gun pointed at it. Stuff from walking around to turning back to make sure a buddy is behind you or whatever.

When an optic is said to be "NVG compatible" what (I believe) they mean you will be able to use it in line with a NOD (by mounting the NOD behind the optic on the rifle). In plain English it means you can see the reticle/ dot through a NOD. If the NOD is on one eye and you try to aim the rifle with the other you would see with the night vision through one eye and with the other a lit optic on the ambient light surface. I have never done this but I suspect it would work badly.  The way to use a weapon in conjunction with a NOD is to have it on your face and aim the weapon via an IR laser. To do this you need a legit IR laser that is able to be zeroed and can hold said zero. A DBAL which is basically a civilian legal equivalent to a PEQ-15 costs about a grand. Yeah this sucks, I am knee deep in said suck right now. If anybody knows of a legitimately viable alternative I am interested. (Rednecking the cheapest IR laser you can find onto a gun won't cut it. It won't be able to get or hold a zero and thus will not be able to hit #*$* with it, sorry.)

Anyway I hope this helps our friend C and maybe a few other folks.  As always input is appreciated.

Body Armor, To Buy Or Not And When To Use

The topic of body armor has come up again recently. I have talked a bit about it in the past. Anyway here we go, some of this will probably be new and some will be rehashed.The first question is if you should buy body armor. I would say that folks who think they might end up on the two way range some day would be well advised to acquire body armor. It saves lives and gives a useful advantage. It broadly comes in two types soft armor (like cops wear)  and rifle plates. Soft vests can sometimes be had pretty cheap. They will stop most pistol rounds and buckshot. It comes in class 2A, 2 and 3A. Each successively heavier type stops larger/ faster bullets but is also heavier and thicker. A lot of folks recommend class 2 as a good compromise. One of these might be handy if you have to make large cash transactions or otherwise function at increased risk in a normal non mad max world. Rifle plates are solid ceramics or steel plates that stop heavier/ faster rounds including most common rifle rounds up to the .308/30'06 range. They are relatively heavy, cumbersome and expensive. Then again they do stop rifle bullets. While a stripped plate carrier could theoretically be concealed under a coat or sweatshirt they are not something most folks would wear outside of a war zone or situation where a gunfight was likely. When to buy it is however a practical question. Once you have some basic weapons w/ ammo and ancillary stuff, some food and other gear it might be a good time to look at body armor. The subject of cost comes up here. My experiences as a consumer and brief google research show the following for prices. A soft vest will probably cost as much as a decent used revolver (around $300) and a plate carrier with rifle plates costs about as much as a mid shelf AK or lower end AR ($600ish or more). This is honestly something folks on really low budgets may have a hard time affording. I wouldn't fault somebody who was doing their best to slowly work through their families needs in a logical way and had to put off the purchase of body armor indefinitely.That being said if you have several nice pistols and a half dozen military pattern rifles but no body armor your priorities are skewed. I would recommend that you stop collecting guns. Delay the purchase of your next toy vital survivalist tool, consider maybe selling a safe queen and get the stuff you need to have every possible advantage on the two way range. Personally I would place body armor before gen III night vision. This is simply because of cost as body armor costs about 1/5th as much as a PVS 14 monocle. [While night vision is another topic most of the things said about body armor could be amplified about night vision. Very useful but very expensive.]When to use it. Personally body armor is part of my home defense plans. I want every possible advantage, fighting fair is for idiots and losers. Lots of folks talk about how body armor is not useful for insurgents or  guerillas or generally in modern "4G" warfare. I have to observe that most of them have not been a boots on the ground (vs say a senior FG officer in some redundant "command") participant in one of these conflicts. Lots of lives are saved by body armor. There is a reason that historically speaking fatalities are down (though amputees are up by percentage) in our recent conflicts. Body armor saves lives. A plate carrier will typically weigh around 20 pounds (plates at 7-8lbs each, a couple pounds for the carrier, potentially side plates, etc) give or take. A full up IOTV weights more and to be blunt I would not recommend it for most civilian or G applications.Some folks talk about how the added weight slows you down. Some argue this is a significant factor in recent conflicts, particularly Afghanistan. I read a great article about this called Bring Back The Light Infantry which I linked to in an old but if I do say so myself pretty awesome post.For me if things went all Red Dawn and I was playing guerrilla with remaining parts of my unit, buddies or whatever I would be inclined to wear body armor far more often than not. The decision would be a trade off between the protection body armor offers and the decreased mobility it brings. Mostly this would be an issue if we needed to carry a particularly heavy load to sustain ourselves for a long period or due to heavy items needed for the mission. Also if speed was important and the risk of contact was quite low I might consider ditching the armor. Certainly I would wear armor if conducting any sort of planned operation such as a raid or ambush. Basically unless there was a really good reason (or reasons) not to I/we would wear our darn body armor. Not too long ago I found myself doing a timed run in interceptor body armor, a uniform, boots and a helmet. Two miles took me 16 minutes plus a few seconds but I do not remember exactly; so about a minute to a minute and a half longer than it would in shorts and running shoes. Of course adding a chest rig with a bunch of magazines and a rifle would be an increase in weight but you would have that stuff either way. The point I am trying to get at is that body armor, especially a basic plate carrier with 2 rifle plates, just ISN'T REALLY ALL THAT HEAVY. If you have a strong core, a bit of muscle and run/ ruck regularly like you should be doing anyway wearing body armor, though it does increase the suck a bit really isn't an issue. I have to humbly submit for consideration that if a person who isn't fit enough to go play war wearing body armor isn't fit enough to play anyway.

Quote of the Day

"I think the occasional gunfight between representatives on the House floor would spice things up and generally liven the otherwise dull parliamentary proceedings. "
-Tam

For background on this quote a Jordanian MP pulled a gun on a former MP during a televised debate. Go over to Tam's place and check it out.

Independence Day and Another Year Older

Well it is July 4th also known as Independence Day in the 'Merica. Aside from having a day off work to do fun things with the fam, eating too much food, drinking more than is probably necessary and maybe shooting or fireworks it is a good day to reflect. So I did some reflecting.

 I am not particularly thrilled with the state of Independence and the overall situation in our country. Our economy is still firmly in fail mode. The big banks and rich connected folks who arguably destroyed our economy are doing fine. They profited handsomely by manipulating the economy for years and then got bailed out. The normal working folks in the middle got hosed. Over the last few years the average American household lost 39% of it's wealth. Sure some of them did stupid things like getting adjustable rate loans for 120% of the place's value or buying a home with an interest only payment that is 65% of their pre tax income but that just compounded their individual suck factor. The unfortunate bottom line is that many good people who did nothing wrong lost much of their life's savings. For anyone who is concerned I think the habitual welfare cases are doing about as well as they ever do.


 Our government and the mainstream media have been pushing this recovery without any visible positive indicators jobless recovery thing so hard it is painfull to watch. Sort of like the restaurant that is aggressively pushing the fish it is a pretty clear that A) there is something wrong with the fish and B) the folks doing the pushing have a vested interest in convincing you that nothing is wrong with the fish. Here is a hint, the fish is definitely past it's prime and might have already gone bad. I see other things going on but talking about it is not really productive. To be honest most of it (over the past few years gun rights have been doing well between Heller, the new Constitution Carry trend and expansion of CCW rights) depresses me.


Since I try to stick to things I/we can actually afffect and positively influence instead of just whining about how tough times are I started thinking about independence on a personal level. The first question is what exactly would we consider personal independence. To me personal independence would be having the capability to do as many of the various things needed for a normal, modern existence for yourself. Along these lines it should go without saning that  the less you have to rely on other people or organizations the better. There are so many areas this touches from being able to fix a leaking sink to treating a bad cut or protecting yourself. To touch on just a few:

-Having solid defensive capabilities and some default offensive capabilities is very important. If you must rely on somebody else, be it a cop or local tough guy or even worse a gang, to protect you then independence is impossible. Have a gun and know how to use it. Heck, having a few guns isn't a bad thing. The emphasis however needs to be more on the 'know how to use it' than just on getting a gun and some bullets. Know how to defend yourself without a gun also. You probably don't need to practice MMA 10 hours a week (though if you have the time that would be good;) but get some training from a qualified instructor and try to practice enough to stay reasonably fresh.

I would be inclined to focus on realistic scenarios. It is far more likely that you will be car jacked,  robbed at gunpoint or maybe home invaded by some meth meads then Chinese Paratroopers invading or an Alphabet agency SWAT team or the neighbors attacking to steal your crispix. What you will probably face in some sort of emergency scenario would be normal crime and violence on steriods.  Instead of robberies just happening outside of sketchy clubs at 3am and home invasions being predominantly in Cracktown things will change; conventional wisdom that says noon at Safeway is a low threat environment and nice neighborhoods are pretty safe will cease to be valid. If things go on long enough folks will adapt but that is no concillation to those first few unlucky folks who are victims. Your carry piece and the holster it goes in are probably more important that whatever sweet rifle and chest rig you have got. Worry more about basic home defense and out and about precautions than how to effectively ambush armored vehicles or conduct a squad attack.

-Work toward financial independence. Becoming truly financially independent is problematic. Unless you are very wealthy or want to live very simply it is not very realistic to be entirely financially independent. Best case if you own your home/ land money is needed for fuel and taxes and other stuff you can't grow. For most folks living a fairly normal pattern of life who desire a relatively conventional home paying it off by middle age is an impressive feat and earlier is improbable. Not saying it is not possible or that nobody does it but that most folks, even if they make pretty good choices can't do it. That however doesn't mean you can't work towards a reasonably decent place and keep improving.

For heavens sake pay off high rate debts like credit cards, personal loans and nasty vehicle/ hobby stuff loans. Aside from sucking the financial life out of you now they will get way worse if our economy tanks. If possible pay off variable interest rate debts or if they are large and will take time at least roll them into a decent fixed rate. Strive to be debt free aside from maybe a reasonable fixed rate mortgage. Start saving today if you haven't been already. Save for all sort of relatively minor real life issues like car/ home repairs, injuries, job loss, etc as well as for the long term. I am less concerned about how you save (cash, IRA, 401k, investments, metals, etc) than that you are saving in some form or another. Once you have knocked out the bad debt and have some money put away all sorts of other things like paying off a home early, going back to school or changing career fields are possible. I will stop trying to make this horse I have pulled to the water drink.

-Become less dependent on normal commerce for food. Stash some food for if normal commerce is interupted by a disaster or whatever. Somebody smarter than me suggested 3 months of things you normally eat (obviously shelf stable) like pasta, canned goods, etc and then a year of long term shorage type stuff. For every day and the theoretical long term food production is important. At least consider growing some food. If it is possible in your situation that would be a good thing to do.

-Work on all the other stuff you need. A person probably can't build the skills of a professional mechanic, a journeyman carpenter, electricial, welder, plumber and mason in a lifetime. However you can probably learn to do some normal tasks that you may need which these people do. Doing a tune up on the family auto is easier than rebuilding the engine, building a deck or shed is easier than a shopping mall, you get the idea. If you find something that you are good at and enjoy then by all means go deeper into it.

The point, if I have one, is to strive to become more independent. The more independent you are the less you will rely on other people, and to some extent our government and 'the system' to meet your needs. This could be very important in the future.

As to me well, it is my birthday. Another year older and all that jazz. In some ways I am in a better place and in others things are about the same. It was a nice quiet day. Had some fun with Wifey and Walker. He enjoyed birthday cake which is not suprising. I got an amazon gift certificate and an ice cream maker from the rents. As usual my gift from us is cash. I still have some thinking to do but will likely get some rifle plates for the Banshee plate carrier I recently ordered.

Anyway I hope you all have a great Independence Day. Do some fun stuff with people you love and if you have a few minutes think about how to become a bit more independent.

Blog Update- Things That Have Been Bothering Me

The new blogger setup is terrible and I hate it. Maybe I am paranoid or something but I think it is also eating comments. The amount of time I waste waiting for it to unfreeze or editing out jumbled together stuff is out of control.

Something kind of weird has been coming clear to me. First people want to read or listen to folks who know what they are doing or at least have half a clue. This makes sense as I don't learn a whole lot from folks who know less than me about a given topic.

However half the time folks want to ignore the advice or scale it down such that they are basically ignoring it. I get this too. Different things work for different people. More to the point often the right answer is at least somewhat hard and people have varying amounts of time/energy/motivation. It is often harder to do the right thing than the easy less right thing.


The place where it confuses me is that folks seem to want a kind of rubber stamp of approval on these decisions which go against the advice which was given in the first place. They really, really want to hear that their own watered down psuedo version of your plan is going to clearly lead to the exact same results.

Example: I recommend that you practice an exercise program that consists of lifting heavy things and running or road marching with some bodyweight stuff mixed in. A guy comes on the net and says after reading 30 posts on this topic that he walks for 20 minutes 3 times a week and does some situps and pushups occasionally. If I do anything other than lie and tell him that this plan he is executing is great and will clearly prepare his body for the zombie apocalypse his underwear gets in a big wad about it.

I guess part of teaching or instructing people and to a degree a piece of this whole blogging thing I do is giving people recommendations about how to do things that I matter of factly do not recommend. Typically this is trying to fit them into the closest option to the thing I actually suggest and have it work with their life. I might be improving with this as my ability to use tact has increased over time but then again my willingness to argue or debate is dropping so who knows.

Another thing that bothers me is bringing up a problem without a solution. Maybe it is just because it was ingrained into me at work to never bring anybody a problem unless I have a solution. Chances are they know it is a problem also and if they could figure out a better answer they would already be using it. So basically just pointing out the problem is being a sharp shooting jerk. The difference between being that annoying sharp shooting jerk and somebody offering their .02 cents is having a solution to the problem you present.

Example, I got into a discussion with a fellow over combatives. I favor the modern hybrid style that is MMA. He talked forever about what is in his very well informed opinion wrong with MMA. The thing is that he failed to actually offer a better option. That was convenient because last I checked MMA guys were just beating the hell out of everybody all over the place. So much so that over the past few years traditional competitions and old school combat type sports have been frantically making up random arbitrary rules to keep MMA guys from curb stomping their stupid fake little competitions into oblivion. You don't see MMA leagues banning super deadly karate/ kung fu fighters from showing up but the opposite is definitely true. If anybody mentions the so deadly you can't possibly practice it against an opponent who actually tries to fight his own plan "Krav" I might burst a frickin blood vessel.

Another thing that has been bothering me is when folks try to argue feelings instead of actually discussing facts or valid points. Maybe to say it more accurately when they try to make up facts or points to fit their feelings.

Example: I hate the Springfield XD, strait up. I hate the angle of the grip, I hate the stupid little grip safety, I hate the way they look, I just hate them. The only way I would buy one is if the deal was so good (like say $200) that I knew I could either pass it to a friend and be doing them a favor or easily sell it at a nice profit.

Note that I never said they were not good, reliable and functional weapons. I didn't say they are not safe or a very good value which comes with a well thought out initial set of accessories. They are fine weapons, probably in the top choices for tough practical use, just not one I have any interest in owning.

Does this distinction make sense? I didn't try to make up some BS facts to fit my feelings on the matter. I just stated them and moved on.

Finally it gets even worse if I talk about any gun negatively. Every single gun all of you all own is the perfect survival weapon for every possible situation. It doesn't matter if you can't hit the broad side of a barn with it at 5 paces, the thing holds 1 or 2 or 7 bullets, it is notoriously unreliable, ammo for it was only made between 1897 and 1899 in Zaire or that  only 7 of them were made in somebodies mom's basement and thus parts/ accessories are virtually impossible to find. It is the best damn gun ever. Everybody finally happy?

Anyway that is what has been bothering me in the blogosphere lately.

Don't Be A Sheep

Sometimes I seriously wonder about people. I remember hearing some time ago about a parent and kid who went shopping at a big box store. I don't remember the details but somehow they ended up in the security office with the kid, who I think was 7, in his underwear. This went on for hours. I really wonder what this Dad's deal was and why he let any of this happen. I couldn't find the story but found one about a man who was "forced to pull down his pants" in Walgreens.

Somehow this topic came up between Wifey and I recently. Off the cuff I said that my response would be "F#*$(@ you, I'll kick the #*$) out of you if you don't get out of my way." Wifey nicely said I am a bit grown up to talk that way and that "I'm leaving" would get the same affect across. In any case the point is that minimum wage retail store security goobers are not on the list of people who I must or will take any flack from. They don't get to make me go anywhere or detain me and their medical insurance isn't good enough to lay a hand on me. The idea of letting some buffoon touch my kid is even more ridiculous. Just not on the list of things I am going to let happen.

I heard recently on the TV that bill collectors threatened to take some woman's kids away from her. That should set off the "this guy is talking out of his behind" bells but hey, some folks are smarter than others. How would I answer that "get a couple guys, come to my house and try it."

I think protecting your kids is something that is hard wired into us. Also assuming you don't start shooting random people in the street or murder an old woman who goes to say hi to your kid I do not think it is a bad thing. Protecting your kids is part of a parent's job.

However having the will is only part of it. Will in and of itself doesn't make anything happen. You have got to be able to back the will up with action. You have got to have the skills to fight and the muscle to make it work. Also having weapons and the ability to use them is pretty darn useful if things get really bad.

 If this isn't a reason to train aggressively I do not know what else is.

Quote of the Day

"When in doubt, shoot them all"-Wifey

We are watching the movie Face Off where the good guy looks like the bad guy who looks like the good guy.

Picture Time

 Folks always talk about that individual whose politics you hate but you think would be wicked cool to party with. For me without a shred of doubt it would be Bill Clinton.

How To Not Get Reginald Denny'ed

I saw a pretty neat picture over at Oleg Volk's place. It is my opinion that for a person driving a car a pistol is the only viable (well a sawed off shotgun or some sort of an SMG but those have legal hoops/ issues) weapon. Seriously if you have ever maneuvered a rifle in a vehicle you would know why. Unless you are driving with the muzzle hanging out the window there is no way you could get it onto target in time. At close ranges you can hit targets while moving slowly but it is probably not the best way to go.

Getting to your piece quickly is important. I would seriously look at the Universal Vehicle Handgun Mount. One of these is on my short list when we get back to the states. I wouldn't store a gun in one of these as it is visible but putting it in the vehicle mounted holster for long drives and locking it up or putting it on your person when you leave the car is probably a darn good way to go.

For this very narrow scenario I am not convinced that kind of pistol really matters much. Especially if your concerns are somebody trying to hit you with an impact weapon or pull you out of the car it would almost be a contact shot. You probably don't need that many bullets and the target is going to be aweful close. Even the uber common but rather unimpressive snubby .38 might just be fine for this job.
Beyond having a piece......

Pay attention to what is around you. You might not watch the local news in every place you could end up on a long drive and may miss the national news for a few days now and then. However you can look at what is going on in the area you are driving in. If there are large unhappy seeming groups of people on the sidewalks and in the street it is a sign that you need to consider another route. If there is an angry mob yelling and throwing stuff and burning things then haul butt to someplace else.
Lock your doors. Obviously this is not a cure all because cars have windows. Speaking of windows you might want to keep them rolled up in populated areas, admittedly a hard thing to do in a car without AC in the South during the summer. However it will prevent someone from just grabbing or hitting you. That split second will let you grab a piece or hit the gas or both.

Speed is security. I have never heard of somebody driving 40 miles an hour getting pulled out of their car and whooped on. DO NOT STOP. I certainly wouldn't advise you to hit somebody with your vehicle or drive on the sidewalk under normal circumstance; however some circumstances are not normal and you will have to use your best judgement.
One might look at the kind of areas (Watts, Detroit, LA, etc) that had significant riots in the past and see some commonalities. You can look at these events as well as others and draw your own conclusions.

Anyway that pretty much sums up my thoughts on that.

Magpul- Reality Check

Watch this video. If you do not have the time or interest to watch the whole thing please watch from about 9:10 to 11:00.  Develop and improve skill sets. Harden your body, mind and heart.  

SHTF-Oriented Fitness and Martial Arts for a Middle-Aged Couch Potato

I saw this thread 1, 2 over at Survival Blog and have to talk about it.....

Things like this always kind of bother me. It is like folks are framing a question to get an answer they want. "What is the best gun if I do not want to spend a lot of money but want something super reliable and also really cool?" or "What is the best bolt action rifle that costs less than $120 has dirt cheap ammo and was manufactured between about 1898 and 1945 in a country that borders Poland and China?" Maybe even worse folks ask for seriously sub optimal and almost ridiculous advice like "So I won't exercise at all and will continue being a huge slob, also I am not willing to spend any money or time on preparedness, have no extra space in my home and am unwilling to change my current lifestyle in any way but how do I become completely prepared for the Zombie apocalypse in 30 days?"

For folks getting back into fitness the key is to start with something that is reasonably easy (in fancy words training OPTIMALLY not MAXIMALLY) and to slowly but CONSISTENTLY  and methodically progress in difficulty and length of effort based on some reasonably logical plan. Heck, those are the keys to fitness anyway but older folks with some extra pounds and maybe some injuries can't get away with what healthy 22 year olds can.
Tighten up on your diet is so important I just can't talk about it enough. Like a lot of things as you get older the slack goes away. At 20 or 25 most folks can eat just about anything and stay at a healthy weight but that goes away over time. I am not saying that you have to shift to a perfectly healthy diet tomorrrow but just about everybody can do better. Have a bit of discipline to not eat complete junk like fast food, chips and sweets all the time and pay some attention to your portions. A significant amount of the "bad knees/ hips/ backs" of 35-55 year olds would magically be cured by getting to a reasonable body weight.
Assuming a program makes some sense ie: is progressive or scalable, allows enough time to recover, has strength, muscular endurance and running/ rucking type components and generally passes the common sense test it should be just fine. Doing something is probably more important than following the perfect program.
As to specific points that came up in this series with my comments:

"To start with, use only a few primitive techniques (punches, kicks, blocks, movements) and combinations of them. A simple well-practiced technique is far better than several of those which you won’t be able to do in the critical situation. A simple and reliable technique is far more valuable than a complex one."

I agree with this but it kind of misses a simple and valuable point. The basics are what make you a good athlete or fighter. It is honestly a disservice to call them the basics in that it demeans them and implies that there are some more useful and advanced techniques out there. The difference between a total novice and a great fighter or shooter is that a great fighter or shooter can properly apply the basics very quickly at the right time with a high level of consistency while a novice fails at some or maybe even all of those.

For example anyone could learn in an afternoon the exact same skills that Chris Costa of Magpul fame or genuine Tier 1 Bad Mama Jamma Larry Vickers use to draw and fire a handgun. Does this mean that they would be able to put a round downrange from concealed carry in the same sort of time, let alone have the same accuracy? Does it mean that Mr. Couch Commando could defend himself as efficiently as either of those gentlemen could if he was attacked leaving the Bank after cashing a check? I seriously doubt it.
If you can’t do at least 50 push-ups in a single set, your punch will never be any good."

This is just stupid and is really what bothered me enought to write this whole thing in the first place. First of all let us look at where striking "power" comes from, namely proper technique and then sheer strength.

I have been hit by a lot of people in my life. Some of them were professional fighters. A professional welterweight outpunched a few 220+ pound big strong men because he really knew exactly what he was doing. Bringing us back to the first point for a second this is a great example of mastering the basics. Secondly if we factor it out technique by getting fighters of similar skill levels then sheer raw strength (and size but those two usually rhyme) is what matters in terms of striking power. A punch is a quick aggressive movement of near full force. If you are going to exercise to hit hard you lift big heavy things to get stronger, period. Local muscular endurance, which is what max rep pushups measure has absolutely nothing to do with this other than that it may be losely related to strength.A guy who is strong (we would have to define that but I don't feel like tossing out some random arbitrary numbers) can hit hard, a guy who is REALLY STRONG can hit REALLY HARD.  Jim Wendler or Matt Kroc could hypothetically have the fighting technique of an average elementary school kid and still hit REALLY HARD because they are just that strong.
Lastly to utterly refute this concept I bring up Butterbean. I rather doubt he could do 50 good pushups but he sure hits hard.

In a reply to this post a fellow recommends training in some Japanese swordfighting thing called Kendo to get into shape. This sounds like a great plan if you want to learn traditional Japanese swordfighting but is a poor allocation of precious time and money if you want to get into shape or learn an effective modern martial art to defend yourself with. It honestly seems sort of like apprenticing yourself to a buggy whip manufacturer.
Well, those are my thoughts on that.

Interesting Reading

I read a Operation Banner An Analysis of British Operations in North Ireland. It is dry, and one sided but interesting all the same. Probably a pretty good overview of the topic and it is hard to argue with the price. If anybody has read some other good stuff on the IRA or the Troubles please drop it in the comments section for me to check out. Extra bonus points for PDF's because I am cheap.

Selco's One Year in Hell

So there is this guy Selco. He wrote a bunch of stuff in forums over the last few years (if I recall) and recently started a blog called SHTF School that is a big hit. He lived through the war in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's (or claims to, I have no reason to doubt him and it certainly comes across as legit) and as you can expect learned some hard lessons. In addition to the blog he has a course called "One Year in Hell." Today I will be talking about this course.

It is predominantly a series of audio recordings of a fellow named Jay asking open ended questions and Selco answering them and taking small tangents as they come up naturally. The first few talk about how things were before the war and the time leading up to it. Then he talks about how his group, a large extended family kind of thing, came together and the things developed. He talks about trading and moving around, what worked well and about mistakes people paid dearly for. The whole thing flows like a conversation you could have with someone to sort of 'pick their brain' on a topic. I think there are 30 some odd recordings and I am about half way through them. We will briefly hit the usual format.

Good: Been there and done that. This isn't some random, albeit well intentioned, guy saying what he thinks. This is a fellow who lived through a very rough time telling us what he learned and what his current preps look like. Very valuable stuff.

I also appreciate that it is audio instead of text. I will sit down, crack open a beer or grab a cup of coffee and listen to a segment while doing the usual online surfing or just relaxing. It is broken into sections based on loose topics that vary between a bit under 10 minutes and about a half hour which is nice. Easy to squeeze into a busy schedule.

The Bad: The audio quality is not particularly great. You can clearly hear everything and it reminds me of an AM station in the middle of nowhere in terms of quality. I would not say that it detracts from the message.

The Ugly: None yet.

Overall Impression as of now: I am really enjoying it. Definitely very interesting and I have taken some notes and added some things to my lists. The cost of this course is $29.95.The real question as always "is it worth the money?"

Yes I think so. I put a certain amount of money into preparedness research/ personal development. Typically that means a few books a year. For comparison that would typically buy you 1 or 2 preparedness type books. I have gotten more out of the first half of this course than several books (books that I was happy with). Certainly I would look at a fresh perspective by someone who has actually lived through some crazy stuff than another random guys take on basic preparedness.

I will do a more in depth post once I have finished the course.

Disclaimer: I received a subscription free of charge to review.

Interesting Video

Tam linked to a video. Two young women are walking down the street and a staggering drunk spits at them, seeming to hit one. They walk off camera and her friend comes back to presumably yell at the staggering drunk who then KO's her with an elbow to the face. Warning, the video I am about to link to portrays real life violence, namely a chick getting KOed by a jerk. You can watch the video here if so inclined.

The gal really messed up by coming back and yelling at him. Of course I am not saying she deserved what followed but it could have been avoided. When the other person is clearly aggressive and a lot bigger/ stronger than you escalating a situation is not smart.

The legitimate options would be to A) call the cops, B) just leave, which only makes sense if you want to avoid interacting with cops due to warrants, being 18 drinking on a fake ID or have a pocket full of designer drugs, or lastly C) violence. I won't debate this one, I would send the guy to the ER for sure. However that option isn't so available for gals. Unless she wanted to shoot the guy or fastpitch a brick to the back of his head fighting with a drunk (even as drunk as this guy) jerk like that is a bad option for most women.  It is worth noting that cops look for someone that shoots a guy or cracks a skull with 50 mile per hour brick a lot more aggressively than for winners of late night fisticuffs.

Note that none of the options involved talking to this guy. Even a big healthy guy would be stupid to do that. You are not going to have a rational conversation so it is better to just act if you are so inclined. As Wifey said "you don't talk to crazy."