Before I go any further, let me state that the following is based upon my experience, my research, and the region I live in, the Upper Midwest. The temperature extremes here can run from -20’s F in winter to +90’s F in summer. Ambient temperature greatly affects battery performance and life, some battery types more than others. Inside a vehicle in summer, which is parked in direct sunlight, the temperature can reach +40º F, or more, higher than the outside temperature. That’s hot. OK, you get the idea, now on with the show...
My daughter has my old 2-D cell Maglite with an LED emitter upgrade stored in her van. Apparently, she has alkaline batteries in it and, it seems, it always needs new batteries, which she forgets to replace (hey, we’ve all been there). Plus, with alkaline cells there’s the potential for leakage and if you don’t catch that the light is ruined (been there a few times myself). Years ago, what I started doing was storing the alkaline cells outside the light, in baggies, but I digress.
From the research I've done, it seems the best option for a flashlight, or any battery operated device, which will be stored in a vehicle all year, are lithium primary cells (Energizer, to my knowledge, are the best). On their website, Energizer states: “they are complete with leak resistance and performance in extreme temperatures (-40ºF to 140ºF or -40ºC to 60ºC).” Their shelf life is incredible as well. See attached document.
The cheapest fix I came up with for my daughter’s vehicle flashlight is to put six Energizer lithium AA cells into two AA to D cell parallel adapters (ref pic below). I have both batteries and adapters, so there’s nothing to buy. Problem solved. As for her house JIC flashlights, I advised her to use Energizer alkaline cells, which is what we do. I check all our in-service batteries, say twice a year, for power and, if alkaline batteries are used, leakage signs. Google calendar helps me to remember to do this and a lot of other stuff.
AA to D cell parallel adapters
As for general battery application, a rule of thumb I use is:
Alkaline primary cells - If they're hardly used and are stored inside; i.e. JIC flashlights.
Lithium primary cells - If they're hardly (or lightly) used and are stored outside, i.e. vehicle JIC flashlights, garage door opener remotes and keypads.
NiMH or Li-ion secondary cells - If they're used frequently and are stored inside (for the most part); i.e. daily use flashlights, headlamps, and radios.
That’s pretty much how I do it, based upon my climate, and if anyone has some ideas I’d love to hear them. There’s some variations and, of course, your mileage may vary.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
The National Firearms Act of 1934...the one the NRA wholeheartedly endorsed? And yes, they did. Just like the GCA of '68. This is where the term "Fudd" (as in Elmer Fudd) actually came from. What it really means, contrary to what Generation X, Millennials, and so forth will tell you, is someone who only cares about their hunting (and target) firearms being protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This reared it's ugly head again in the early '80s ("black rifle" bans) and the term "Fudd" really took off. BTW, I'm proud to say that I, like thousands of others, helped to get the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 passed. We got petitions signed, wrote letters, recruited NRA members, donated what we could, and so forth. Then I got sick of Wayne LaPierre and "The Old Buys Club" that was the NRA, quit and became a life member of the GOA, the don't compromise. I never looked back.
* Re Maxim Silencer Patent Drawings. As I said, they are called silencers, suppressing sound is their function. Just ask Hiram Maxim, he invented them. Oh, and if you prefer "suppressor" fine by me. Just don't tell me I'm wrong for referring to them as "silencers".
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Too much to transfer over here, Bear Attacks (and Other Critters) is a fairly comprehensive and ongoing discussion on the subject. Click the hotlink and hop on over and enjoy and, perhaps contribute to the discussion.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
.45 ACP, 10 mm Auto (for reference), .40 S&W, and 9x19 mm
This is a very old topic. Nevertheless, since the FBI saw seen fit to stick it’s nose in where it probably didn't (and doesn’t) belong, again (no offense, Blackrock), I feel we need to revisit it. Why so many department and agency administrators hang on every word the FBI says is beyond me, still I guess this is besides the point. Maybe it’s a CYA thing? They can always tell their bosses that the FBI told them so. I wonder, if the FBI jumped off a bridge…never mind.
Let’s get the show on the road. For the sake of brevity, I’m not going to explain every term I use nor go into great depth historically. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning my opinions and parlance or anything else I write. Additionally, what I state below is the way I saw things at the time, in my world, and the way I’m recalling them now. I may not be 100% correct, yet I am certain you will, at least, get the gist of it.
Likewise, I should add that in writing this, I am considering the topic in general and more from the professional’s viewpoint than the armed citizen’s. Consider that the professional is supposed to be highly trained and likely to encounter threats, from both two-legged and four-legged creatures, that are usually far worse than anything a typical armed citizen would ever have to deal with. Lest we forget the inanimate objects that the professional must address. Barricades of various types, structures, vehicles, and so forth. Based on my assessment, the average policeman simply needs a more powerful sidearm than does the ordinary armed citizen.
One more caveat. I am not taking specific ammunition, handguns, or marksmanship, into consideration. It’s unjust and serves no purpose to compare a hot loaded, high performance JHP, fired from a service size pistol, from one caliber, to a moderately loaded FMJ, fired from a pocket sized pistol, in a different caliber, then claim the former caliber superior. The same holds true for shot placement (THE most important aspect of pistolcraft). A weak LRN bullet, fired straight through the heart, spine, or brain, is going to take the fight out of any heinous villain much faster than a hot, heavy, JHP would with a shoulder shot. As I previously stated, I'm addressing this topic in general terms.
Then (circa 1970s):
The 9 mm Parabellum chambered pistol was around, yet not hugely popular. Some were good pistols, some not so good, most single stacks, a few hi-caps. For the most part, the pistols weren’t the problem surrounding the 9 mm, it was the ammunition. Specifically the bullet itself, that was the actual problem. The FMJ bullet, for which most of the pistols were designed to handle, had a tendency to sail through soft tissue, disrupting little, and simply put 9 mm sized holes through the target (not that they can’t kill you). This is a problem with most FMJ or LRN bullets, though it’s exacerbated by the 9’s slightly pointier bullets and higher velocities. JHPs were rather in their infancy and mostly required higher velocities than the 9 mm Parabellum produced to reliably expand (think magnum velocities). Extreme hot-loading the 9 mm, to hopefully gain JHP performance, became a not uncommon practice.
The .40 S&W wasn’t even thought of yet, therefore the .45 ACP was THE auto-pistol round par excellence as far as many of us were concerned. There were JHP bullets available back then. Some 1911s would feed them, others, like my Series 70, would not do so reliably. Because of this, and questionable expansion, most people simply defaulted to the 230 gr FMJ. IMO, that was the king of the FMJ rounds and had a pretty damned good track record. Later, after doing some minor work on my pistol, it would feed anything to include empty cases, but I digress. Most, if not all, of the pistols were 1911 variants. These were usually full-sized, 7+1 “single stack”, service pistols. There were some compact models, notably the Star PD and Detonics Combat Master. Some, both experienced and casual shooters, felt the .45 was a bit much for self-defense and/or police work. They felt the same way about the .357 Magnum as well, yet at least that was a revolver cartridge. You have to realize that, back then, the revolver, in general, and the .38 Special revolver, in particular, was well ensconced in both the police and armed citizen worlds and for several good reasons (which I am not going to get into now).
That’s about where things stood in the olden days. The 9 mm had two strikes against it, three really. 1) Bullet performance or lack thereof, 2) it was chambered in automatics (yes, they were called that back then and rightfully so), which were perceived as unreliable (and were in many cases), and 3) it was a foreign caliber chambered in predominately foreign pistols. The latter was a bigger deal to some than you might think. That if you were going to carry an automatic, carry “a .45”, and that most people are better off with a .38 Special revolver (or .357 if you’re a serious shooter). I should mention that, to the best of my recollection, there wasn’t much between the 9 mm and .45 back then except the .38 Super, which was usually chambered in 1911 pistols.
Fast forward to the ’90s:
I’m skipping the ’80s and therefore infamous FBI shootout, the birth of the 10 mm Automatic, which I am not discussing here, and it’s offspring the .40 S&W. This post is getting to be long enough without adding in all that history. If you’re interested in those topics, and I feel you should be, I very highly recommend the following threads, which include videos: 1986 FBI Miami Gunfight - Firefight & Personal Reflections and Police Pistols: 9 mm vs. .40 S&W. You may note that in post #12 of this thread I seem to be a bit on the negative side regarding the .40 S&W. At the time of that writing, my consideration was more from the armed citizen, casual shooter, perspective. In other words, the stereotypical homeowner who simply wants a “nightstand gun”, has little to no training, and shoots once a year or less. Hopefully, in my conclusions below I will clarify my viewpoint.
Moving on. The .40 is now here because the FBI made the 9 mm it’s scapegoat due to a failure to stop the shooter in the above linked Miami shootout (read those threads for the details). As usual, some welcomed it and others viewed it as unnecessary. “If the 9x19 mm isn’t enough, why screw around, go up to the .45 ACP and be done with it” was what many, including my (young and ignorant) self, were saying. As a blanket statement that is true. Nevertheless, there’s a lot more to it that just that, which I’ll get to shortly.
At the time, JHP performance was progressing nicely across the board. We’re down to about 1000 fps for mostly reliable expansion and adequate penetration using quality ammunition. The 9 mm, due to several factors, replaced the .45 ACP in our military, it is rapidly replacing the .38 (and .357) as America’s police arm/caliber. It’s also made huge inroads into the armed citizen market. Really, what’s not to love when you think about it. The .45 ACP is still heavily followed and with good reason. Nonetheless, the .40 is coming on strong, also with good reason(s).
If one considers the 9 mm Parabellum cartridge as being the .38 Special of the 21st Century, I’d say that is a just consideration. It has moderate recoil, greater velocity, more power, and now better projectile performance/terminal effect, higher capacities, far easier and faster to reload, readily available and reasonably priced ammunition, and so forth. The .38 Special (revolver) is no less of a caliber/firearm than it’s always been. Perhaps it’s even better than is was due to bullet technology. Be that as it may, looking at it strictly from a practical perspective, the modern, 9x19 mm, (semi) automatic, high capacity pistol, is simply the better choice in most cases. Certainly so for police and the military applications. But...
Back to the .40 (finally). So, if the above mentioned 9 mm pistols are so good, why switch to the .40 S&W? Simply put, “MORE POWER” as Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor would say. It’s simple physics and common sense. Power wise, the 9x19 mm is pretty good, the .40 S&W is better, the .45 ACP better still with a big caveat. The caveat is the .45, due to it’s larger diameter, necessitates a much larger pistol/grip frame (especially for a hi-cap pistol). The .40 is the biggest diameter cartridge that can fit into a 9 mm size frame. Ergo, most people can easily handle a 9 mm/.40 cal. hi-cap pistol yet find the size of a .45 hi-cap prohibitive.
From the top, Glock 22, G23, and G27, all .40 S&W caliber pistols
The bottom line, as I see it:
First and foremost, there is nothing necessarily wrong with any of these three calibers as a general purpose self-defense cartridge.
In my opinion…the .40 S&W is the near perfect police round. It’s a good balance between the 9x19 and the .45 ACP. I’ve heard it referred to, by some professionals, as a “Goldilocks” round because it’s “just right”. I would have to agree.
All other things being equal, the .40 is a good 15% to 20% more powerful than 9x19 mm, and not very far behind the .45 ACP, if at all (choose your ammunition in any caliber wisely).
Ordinarily, both the 9 mm and .40 are chambered in the same frame size pistols. So, no problem there. If the officers/agents/deputies are readily handling a G17, as an example, there should be no real problem moving up to a G22.
Admittedly, the .40 S&W can have a somewhat greater felt recoil than the 9 mm. Certainly so when 180 gr bullets are used. Having owned one, I can say that the recoil begins to reduce with 165 gr or lighter bullets. To the best of my knowledge, most departments issue 165 or 155 gr JHP ammo. Personally, I did not perceive much difference in recoil between these and 9 mm 124 gr +P ammo, which based on my understanding is currently a common departmental issue round in that caliber. No properly trained officer (or reasonably healthy armed citizen) should have a problem shooting a service pistol chambered in .40 S&W.
Fact: recoil management, in a normal healthy adult, is a mental, not a physical, problem. It can be readily overcome, usually hastily, with concise rudimentary training.
To use the argument that, due to modern bullet technology, the 9x19 mm is now the equal of the .40 S&W and .45 ACP is simply absurd.* Usually, a technological advancement is spread across the entire product line, not simply limited to one specific model. Bullet technology is no different. Ergo, all the major calibers have become reasonably more effective. Need I elaborate further?
Using the above argument to rationalize a department switching back to the 9 mm, from the more powerful .40, which it's already been trained on and is currently using, is not only absurd, it’s ludicrous.
Another irrational assertion it the 9 mm’s greater magazine capacity in like pistols. While technically correct, I hardly think a debate over the importance of one or two rounds of ammo is germane when we’re speaking of magazine capacities of 15-rounds or more. Especially when one considers the second or two that a rapid reload takes.
Taking all of this into account, I feel the real reason for the FBI (and Kool-Aid drinking departments and agencies) shifting back to the 9 mm is nothing but politics. This boils down to two political aspects, 1) money and 2) PC bureau/agency/department candidates. Let’s face it, 9x19 is just cheaper than .40 S&W. Consider also, not all bureau/agency/department candidates are gun people (I’ve personally known more than one anti-gun cop). If you take a tiny person, who doesn’t like guns in the first place, simply getting and keeping them qualified with the 9 mm will be hard enough to do at a reasonable cost (it’s all about the money, money that could best be spent on votes). Now factor into that the additional cost of .40 caliber ammunition and training time** and you can see why the .40 got pooh-poohed.
At the end of the day, I feel the key points are:
All are fine, effective, calibers, nevertheless they simply are not equal.
Law enforcement officers' situations are oftentimes different from armed citizens and may be very severe in nature. I am of the opinion they need all the power they can get (and handle) in a firearm.
Contrary to what the FBI or anyone else says for that matter, there is no magic bullet, caliber, or firearm.
If you are mandated a specific gun/caliber, you’ll have to deal with it. If not, choose the most powerful one you can handle and, most importantly, shoot well. That means with both reasonable accuracy and rapidity.
High-tech weapons and high performance ammunition only benefit the accurate marksman. You cannot buy competency.
For armed citizen or off-duty use, you may want to consider who else may have to use the firearm. Simply because you can handle a .44 Magnum doesn’t mean your spouse can.
There is also something else to consider regarding the .40 S&W. This pertains more to the private owner than a department or agency. The convertibility of some .40 caliber pistols. Tom, aka 7677, and I considered this at length and, as usual, he educated me on the subject. Hopefully, I can recall everything we discussed. At this point, I should mention that we talked only about Glocks. I am uncertain as to how conversions would work with other brands of pistols. That being acknowledged, if you own a G22, G23, or G27 (this might apply to the G35 as well, but I am not certain), you can convert the pistol to .357 Sig with just a barrel swap. You can convert it to 9x19 mm with a conversion barrel and G17/G19/G26 magazines. For those concerned with versatility, what more could you ask for?
Frankly, I would say to anyone contemplating firearms ownership for protection, assuming they fit your lifestyle, do not overlook the Glock .40 caliber pistols. Most certainly do not overlook any .40 S&W pistol solely based upon any negatives you may have seen floating around the internet. Perhaps, if possible, rent one and see for yourself. Rent a 9 mm and compare the two side by side while you’re at it. The G23 (or G22, though it’s a bigger gun to conceal) would make an excellent concealed carry or house gun. Good deals can be had on departmental trade-in pistols and magazines. There’s also the caliber conversions to consider.
In conclusion, if you are presently well ensconced in another major caliber, so be it. Sticking with what you currently own and are comfortable with is probably your best bet. That’s what I did. However, if I were starting out all over again, knowing what I know now, I would have standardized my handguns, for the most part, in caliber .40 S&W. For a multitude of reasons it’s too late for me, however maybe not for you. Think about it.
Beretta Cougar 8040F I had one just like it, but a very close
friend needed a pistol. It was an excellent handgun.
* It has been pointed out by Tom, aka 7677, that due to the FBIs own ammo/caliber selection protocol, and the industry’s embracement of it, that it essentially makes any ammo/bullet falling into the protocol’s standards standards, equal. Sadly, there is truth to that statement. I reiterate, choose your ammunition in any caliber wisely. Reference this post for Tom’s commentary: Police Pistols: 9 mm vs. .40 S&W post #8
** As stated above, there’s only a marginal difference in shootability between the 9 mm and .40 caliber pistol. This is particularly true for someone with professional marksmanship training. Nonetheless, when a person dislikes guns and/or really doesn’t want to learn to shoot in the first place, the little things begin to mean a lot. And the politicians need all those PC candidates to qualify and do it cheaply.
For your further enlightenment:
From Mixup98
Trick Shooting My Glock Model 23 - Why I Carry One For Defense
FYI, I watch this man quite a bit. To my knowledge, he is a retired guard from a Nuke plant and they have to meet stringent NRC training standards. He’s also a former LEO, a deputy sheriff, I believe, and has been a competitive shooter in several disciplines. The man knows what he’s about. He states ”Watch as I use over 40 years of security and law enforcement training along with over 50 years of shooting experience to test-fire and review a wide assortment of firearms.” I highly recommend his channel.
Here’s another one from Mixup98. Do either of these gentlemen seem to be fighting excessive recoil? Note how the one fellow shoots 180 gr JHPs from the compact model with no problems at all.
From the late Paul Harrell
Concealed Carry: .40 S/W vs. .45 ACP. - this and his video in this thread, Police Pistols: 9 mm vs. .40 S&W, really explain and demonstrate the .40 S&W very nicely.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Every and I mean every adult should know these four simple rules that can, have, and will save a child's life. Then teach them to your child/children.
The NRA Eddie Eagle GunSafe Rules For Children are that if you see a gun:
STOP!
This first step is crucial. Stopping first allows your child the time he or she needs to remember the rest of the safety instructions.
Don't Touch
A firearm that is not touched or disturbed is unlikely to fire and otherwise endanger your child or other people.
Leave the Area
This removes the temptation to touch the firearm as well as the danger that another person may negligently cause it to fire.
Tell an Adult
Children should seek a trustworthy adult, neighbor, relative or teacher – if a parent or guardian is not available.
Please go to the site and learn, have your child/children participate as well, the program is for them and it's a great one. Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
FirearmsTactical™, Salus In Periculo, TacticalBriefs™ and logo are trademarks of FirearmsTactical.com."
So, if you're wondering why the FBI came up with the four layers of denim thing, 1) they didn't and 2) this is who did and why.
FirearmsTactical.com
TacticalBriefs
April 2006
Why Four Layers of Denim Cloth?
There continues to be misunderstanding about testing JHP handgun bullet expansion using gelatin blocks covered with four layers of heavy denim cloth.
The four-layer heavy denim test was jointly developed by engineer Duncan MacPherson and California Highway Patrol to force manufacturers to design bullets that will expand more reliably when heavy clothing is encountered in actual shooting events. According to MacPherson:
Modern JHP handgun bullet designs perform very reliably in testing; expansion failures are rare. It seems likely that occasional expansion failures in service are inevitable, but the number of failures in [actual California Highway Patrol shooting incidents] appeared excessive to me even though they were a relatively small fraction of all shootings. The unavoidable conclusion seemed to be that these expansion failures were a result of the fact that the expansion of existing JHP bullet designs were not robust; in engineering terminology, lack of robustness simply means that small changes in conditions are likely to cause failure. Initially, this conclusion seemed surprising because “heavy clothing” stages have been common in handgun ammunition testing protocols ever since this approach was initiated by the FBI handgun ammunition test protocol defined in 1989, and the best modern JHP bullet designs have almost no failures either in these stages or against bare gelatin. A little more thought made this seem less surprising, because the “heavy clothing” stages in various tests seem to have been selected to represent specific clothing without any systematic investigation directed at evaluating what aspects of the cloth were critical.
A thoughtful investigation of the effects of soft barriers (e.g., clothing, as opposed to the hard barriers represented by building materials and automobile glass) seemed to me to be overdue. [California Highway Patrol Firearms Training Unit Lieutenant] Ed Fincel agreed with this assessment, and he, State of California Associate Procurement Engineer Nick Miloskovich and I set about implementing this investigation in the last quarter of 1996. This activity was very successful, and has led to a new ammunition test protocol [International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) Handgun Ammunition Specification]; ammunition satisfying the requirements of this test protocol has been developed [Winchester Ranger T] and is now commercially available in .40 S&W. This new ammunition has much more reliable expansion after penetrating soft barriers than any ammunition previously available in this caliber. Improved .45ACP and 9mm ammunition designs are in the final development stages.1
(MacPherson’s article presents 3-4 pages of additional, detailed information about how four layers of denim cloth was selected.)
The test protocol was established in 1998 by IWBA, which recently disbanded as an organization. It is superior to the FBI Heavy Clothing test event.
Most expansion failures of JHP handgun bullets reported in actual shootings where hard barriers are not involved are probably due to factors that effectively plug up the hollow point cavity and reduce pressure in this area, although the dynamics model that occasionally leads to this result is not completely known in detail. This requirement in the IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification is designed to force JHP bullet designs that expand much more reliably against soft barriers (hard barriers are discussed in more detail below). This requirement was selected after experimentation to provide a standardized, inexpensive, and precisely defined soft barrier that was a stressing but reasonable protocol for ammunition evaluation; it does not represent a simulation of specific clothing. The JHP bullet design features required to satisfy this requirement are well understood, and ammunition having these design features expands much more consistently and reliably against soft barriers than ammunition without these design features....
Therefore the four-layer heavy denim test is NOT intended to simulate any type of clothing; it is merely an engineering evaluation tool to assess the ability of JHP handgun bullets to resist plugging and expand robustly.
Properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is the most accurate realistic soft tissue simulant currently available. It provides a reasonable indication of how a bullet can be expected to perform in soft tissues. All other barrier materials aside, clothing and bone are the primary reasons why a bullet recovered from a human body may not resemble one fired into a block of gelatin.
A well-designed bullet exhibits little difference in expansion and penetration between the bare gelatin test and four-layer heavy denim test. In actual shootings, performance usually falls between results exhibited in these two tests, unless bone is hit early in the penetration path. Thus bullets that expand reliably in four-layer denim testing perform well on the street.
Most modern, premium JHP handgun ammunition from U.S. manufacturers is designed to perform well against the IWBA four-layer heavy denim test.
Nowadays, unless the bullet hits bone or an intervening obstacle, or impacts the body at an extreme angle, it is more likely to perform in human soft tissues almost exactly as it performs in standard ordnance gelatin. More often than not, a bullet designed to perform well in the IWBA four-layer denim test that is recovered from a body looks like the same bullet fired into a block of gelatin. It did not used to be that way a decade ago, and criticism about the limitations of gelatin testing was valid indeed.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Ken's Note: I've watched this video several times over the years. Yeah, it's dated and a typical government made training video. That said, the information and instruction it conveys is still valid...that's why it's here.
Tony Scotti’s LinkedIn post from a few years ago:
"From the ISDA YouTube Channel - A Thirty-Three-Year-Old Educational Army Video on Evasive Driving and Surveillance Detection. As we (ISDA) covered in our YouTube video, "The History of Security Driving," from the late '70s and into the mid 80's the Corporate – Government – and Military community began to realize the value of Surveillance Detection.
As we (ISDA) have mentioned, often, Surveillance Detection is not a new phenomenon. This old US Army Evasive Driving Training Video is thirty-three years old and covers Surveillance Detection.From Moro in the late 70's - Herrhausen in the 80's – Reso in the 90's - Omar García Harfuch's in 2020, there has been a common denominator. In each of these attacks, surveillance detection has played a significant role in the scenario's outcome.This is one of the many educational videos located on the ISDA YouTube Channel. To be notified when a new video is added, we suggest you subscribe to the channel."
Just in case you don't know who Tony Scotti is, here's his bio on Policedriver.com: Tony Scotti To the best of my knowledge, he created the industry. Believe me, there was a great need for this type of driving instruction in the latter part of the 20th Century. There still is.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
The following written instructions are from a no longer available online article entitled "My M1 Speaks For Me!"
"...there are two ways to accomplish "topping-off". The obvious way is to eject a partially-exhausted clip and reload with a full one. The other is to lock the bolt back and insert loose rounds into the clip in the weapon, although, I don't think WWII M1 riflemen often had loose rounds in their pockets! I practiced (as all sensible rifleman who depend on their weapon for living in a battlefield environment did) and can now easily add two or three rounds to a partially emptied en bloc in the Garand:
Open the bolt, catching the ejected un-fired round, while pressing down on the bolt lock stud to the left of the magazine well. If the barrel is hot, wait for it to cool to prevent a 'cookoff.' If the clip ejects, press it into the magazine well.
With the bolt held back, press rounds into the partially emptied clip with a downward, rotating motion until the round snaps into place. Avoid pressing down on the clip itself.
With the knife edge of your right hand holding the operating rod handle to the rear, press down on the clip to release the bolt lock.
Slowly raise the right hand, seeing that the bolt engages the top round, and swing the right hand up and to the right to release the bolt to chamber the top round.
In this way it is easy to top-up to 7 rounds. The eighth would be difficult, I grant you, but then you should have just ejected the partial and loaded a full clip in the first place!"
Here are two variations, the first (left) following the above method, the second (right) a slightly different method in that he keeps the clip seated in the magazine and holds the bolt open...
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
I don’t know if any particular driving rule or piece of advice could be considered the most important of all. Violating most of them could have dire consequences. That being said, if I had to choose a number one rule, it would be the following:
Rule #1 - Whenever you get into the driver’s seat of a vehicle, before you start it, before you buckle up, this should come immediately to mind. Think “the safe operation of this vehicle is now my number one concern”. All other concerns, and I do mean all other, are secondary. Even if you’re taking a sick child to the ER, your primary focus has to be on driving. If it isn’t, you may both get a trip to the ER or the morgue.
In my opinion, this rule opens the mental door that will enable you to follow all the other rules, and to be observant of those drivers both around and ahead of you, and the road and weather conditions. Really, it’s probably more of a state of mind than a rule, nevertheless it is, I feel, the most important.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Ken’s note: the following comments, remarks, opinions, observations, and conclusions, are mine. They have been arrived at by me over many years of personal study and experimentation. Nonetheless, many others more knowledgeable than myself, both here and in other formats, have said essentially the same things for essentially the same reasons.
Israeli System trainee loading his pistol prior to shooting
As I stated in a previous post on ICCF, and I want to emphasize this point, “Much, if not all, of my commentary on this subject was, and is, directed towards the intentional (not mandated) carrying of a modern, perfectly functional and safe, handgun with a loaded magazine and an empty chamber, i.e. condition 3 carry. This with the intent of education not criticism. Hey, it’s a free country (for the time being), YOU carry YOUR gun how YOU wish.” Additionally, I personally have nothing against (or for) the Israel Defense Forces pistol operation and shooting methodologies…for them and in their country. More on this to come.
Please take note of some important factors regarding the Israeli system/method/technique of pistol shooting and/or the practice of intentionally carrying your handgun with an empty chamber, i.e. condition 3 or so-called Israeli carry. These are as follows and, as usual, in no particular order:
My first point is, we’re well into the 21st century, why is carrying with an empty chamber even a consideration for armed citizens? I feel there are a few reasons (in no particular order). There are people who feel they need a gun, know virtually nothing about guns or shooting (and don’t want to admit it), get sold the latest & greatest auto-loading pistol, and don’t want to take any, even elementary, training. Ergo, they feel safe simply because they have a gun, albeit it’s an unloaded one because they’re somewhat ignorant and afraid of it. There’s also the Hollywood influence to deal with. How many times have we all seen in a movie or TV show, our hero about to go into deadly action, melodramatically drawing his or her weapon and jackin’ one into the chamber? This usually accompanied by equally melodramatic music and the overemphasis of the sound of the slide being racked. Sadly Hollywood has a huge influence, usually a negative one, on the firearms community. There are people out there who think they’re firearms wise based upon all the Hollywood action films they’ve see. Lest we forget the Israelophiles who believe that if the IDF/Mossad does it, it just has to be the absolute bestest, so that’s the way they’re going to do it as well. There’s more, but you get the idea. I’ve seen many people like them and, I’m ashamed to admit, have known several people like them as well and they’re a hard lot to reprogram. Of course, there are also the folks who, despite the fact that they are somewhat educated on their pistol and its usage, are still rather uncomfortable with their pistol having a loaded chamber.1 As an example, I had a dear friend whose only handgun experience was in the Army in the early ’80s. They taught empty chambers only. These people can generally be reached easier and shown that a loaded chamber can be safe and work for them.
Why the Israelis do it. It must be remembered that the then Palestinians (Jews and Arabs) were essentially under British rule from 1918 to 1948. That’s 30-years of British influence. Many Palestinian Jews (and some Arabs) served in, and saw combat with, the British military to include the army, RAF, RN, commando, and special operations units. The Palestinian Jewish veterans formed the backbone of, and training cadre for, the future Israeli Defense Forces. With that stated and to the best of my knowledge, not being a nation of handgunners, the British services all warranted empty chamber carry for automatic pistols. Thus, the seed was sown.
Furthermore, the IDF, especially so in the early years of their nation, had many varied types of handguns and many varied types of people (who spoke many varied languages) to train and train very quickly. Since the vast majority of these people hand little to no firearms experience, the simplest, fastest, and safest, method was the loaded magazine/empty chamber method. It made sense. In the main, this worked out well for them and they stuck with it.
The Israeli technique of pistol shooting, once developed, was and is based primarily upon military necessities and applications, certainly not what we might call armed citizen requirements. Even a cursory glance at their methods indicates this is so.
Overall, the Israeli method, from what I know of it, does not adapt itself well to positions other than standing.2 Even when taking into account only the empty chamber carry aspect of the system, which is really the point that concerns me most, I consider it exceedingly awkward, tedious, and precarious, from non-standing positions. You can easily see for yourself. Following all the rules of Safety With Dry-Fire Practice, and whenever it is completely safe and discreet to do so, experiment with drawing and operating the slide from the various positions you usually hold during the day. Seated in your car (imaging being carjacked and having to chamber a round), from your favorite chair or sofa, while in bed (from wherever you normally keep it while asleep), cooking in your kitchen, while using the lavatory (hey, it can happen), if you are a parent, with a small child in your arm (it’s a possibility and something I actually planned for in my day), and so on and so forth. See how well this works out. Note, you may want to use training rounds (not live ammo!) to see if you successfully chambered a round during these experiments.
It is worth noting that the Israeli or IDF system of pistol shooting and the simple carrying of one’s pistol with the chamber empty (condition 3) have nothing in common except the the empty chamber. The former is their complete method of instruction; an empty chamber is usually, but not always, indicated. In the latter, it’s simply a mode some people use of pistol readiness or carry.
In so far as civilian/armed citizen (to include police and security personnel) applications are concerned, I feel the practice of intentional empty chamber carry should be highly discouraged and frowned upon. This through insight and instruction, not through indignation.
For those who partake in empty chamber carry out of fear of an unintentional discharge, I strongly recommend some personal experimentation. Carry the pistol, around your home, as it should be carried yet with an empty chamber. Do this for a week or so and see it the gun has “discharged” itself.3 If it has not discharged, this should prove to you that the pistol is safe to carry with a round in the chamber.
At this time I feel it’s appropriate to address the so-called drop-safe question. After reading the preceding paragraph, undoubtedly someone will think the experiment doesn’t test a weapon’s drop-safeness. Of course it doesn’t and the reason should be apparent. Personally, and at the risk of being lambasted (which I have seen happen on various social media), I will say that I feel the entire drop-safe concern is legitimate yet overly inflated.4 Certainly so with modern firearms. That being said, in order to be concise, I will state my opinions, omitting numerous explanations, and let the reader decide for themselves. Alternatively, we can discuss it in the commentary like mature adults. First, “not drop-safe” does not mean that the firearm will automatically discharge when dropped. All it means is the potential is there, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the arms design. To the best of my understanding, for a firearm to be truly drop-safe, a positive mechanical firing pin lock of some sort is required. As long as the firing pin can move, spring notwithstanding, it is not absolutely drop-safe. Therefore, most firearms are technically not drop-safe. Second, the main reason many firearms, mainly long-guns, are carried in C3 isn’t necessarily that they’re not drop-safe. There are several other legitimate considerations, which I am not going to go into at this time. When combat seems even remotely likely, chambers are loaded and safeties applied on these weapons. Suffice it to say that, depending upon YOUR pistol’s design, it not being drop-safe should not be the only reason you decide upon carrying it unloaded.
Objections to the empty chamber. Perhaps my greatest personal objection to C3 carry is that it takes both hands to get the weapon into action. Is it necessary for me to further explain the potential here? A close second objection is that it adds another step to the process. Under the extreme stress of an armed confrontation, the last thing one needs is to have to load their pistol. This assuming you remember that you have to load it. What could possibly go wrong? Another concern is speed. Adding the loading step is going to slow you down. It may not be by much, nevertheless it will slow you down. Lastly, by their very nature, handguns are typically viewed as defensive weapons, certainly so for an armed citizen. To defend oneself, one must be attacked, or perceive an attack is imminent. Meaning that an armed citizen is usually behind the curve, they’re re-acting. Therefore a handgun must be ready for immediate use. An empty pistol is far from ready for immediate usage. Enough said.
There’s also the age/health factor to acknowledge. When I was a younger man, I briefly experimented with empty chamber carry mainly out of curiosity, to see how it worked and to learn the nuances of drawing and chambering. I do not recall actually carrying in C3 at any time. This was not a technique for me as I had already proven to myself. Well, now that I’m older I am very glad I did not adopt this as a practice. I have a few “senior health issues”. Two of which are Dupuytren's contracture and a touch of arthritis in both hands, my left is the worse affected. While I can still manipulate a slide, I certainly cannot do it with any significant speed and subsequent reliability. The age/health factor should be considered whenever one decides to adopt or maintain a particular methodology. This is certainly so for firearm’s usage. Guns are the Great Equalizers for seniors and the physically weak or impaired. Therefore, C3 carry alone, and certainly the Israeli/IDF system of shooting, is not geared towards any but the younger and more physically fit amongst us.
The essence. From my perspective, the crux of the matter is whether, through education and training, you can overcome the apprehension of carrying with a round in the chamber. If you can, then by all means do so. If you simply cannot, I would suggest, if at all possible, obtaining a good double action revolver.5 If that is not an option, or you simply choose to carry this way for whatever reason, then the only other alternative is intensive and continuous training in drawing and racking the slide from various positions. If you insist upon, or are legally forced into, using this technique it must be perfected and become instinctual.
Notes:
1There are people who will carry a modern (post WWII) double action revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer. A revolver’s version of C3 carry. I actually knew one police officer who carried his Chief’s Special, which had a hammer block, with an empty chamber under the hammer. That’s a sign of ignorance and is ridiculous. With many very old revolvers, and especially single actions, the empty chamber is the way to go. If you are uncertain of what you have, simply ask a competent gunsmith. They can tell you if it has a hammer block or transfer bar safety mechanism.
2Honestly, I don’t believe any system does adapt itself all that well to non-standing or awkward positions. I am uncertain if any instructors teach methods such as these. If they do, I suppose it would be farther down the road, in their advanced classes. This is why I’m an advocate of training yourself. You know your lifestyle, your daily routines, the most likely scenarios you’ll be in. You know your heath, your physical condition, the way your body moves best. No one knows you better than you do. You have to think and do for yourself. You have to use your logic and common sense. Not everything can be taught in a classroom or range.
3This is easier to determine with certain types of pistol actions than with others. Prior to continuing I feel compelled to state that you must always observe all the safety rules whenever handling any firearm or ammunition. If you do not know what you are doing, don’t be ashamed, ask someone who does, such as a certified gunsmith or instructor. With that in mind, one certain way to determine if your pistol unintentionally discharged is to use a completely empty case, no bullet or powder, but with a live primer. If the pistol fires, you may hear the primer go off (maybe not, they’re not that loud). Nonetheless, upon visual inspection, you will see the firing pin indent. To obtain a primed case you can either pull the bullet and dump the powder from a live round or, if you or a friend handloads, just prime an empty case. Another option is to securely place a piece of mashing tape over the primer area of a spent case or snap-cap. You should be able to tell whether the firing pin has struck the tape or not.
4A dropped firearm may be an accident, however it is also negligence on the shooters part. It’s improper gun handling. The vast majority of unintentional discharges are shooter caused, i.e. negligent discharges. Simply put, just as over-penetration isn’t the main concern, it’s the shooter missing the target that is. The firearm being legitimately drop-safe is not the main concern, it’s the shooter dropping it that is. Maintain control of your firearm at all times.
5Don’t underestimate the revolver. It’s detractors site the heavy double action trigger pull and it’s limited ammunition capacity as it’s main faults. The DA trigger can be easily mastered through safe and consistent dry-fire practice. Depending upon the revolver, there’s always the option of shooting single action. In so far as it’s limited capacity is concerned, that’s debatable. We’re talking a self-defense scenario here, not a SHTF, WROL, or TEOTWAWKI, type situation. Historically, five or six rounds is usually enough. If not, you can always reload. A speedloader should be on hand as a backup, and it's important to practice with it.
For additional commentary on this subject, I append the following threads:
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Where all the big hullabaloo over so-called second strike capability got started I’ll never know but I’ll bet it was from some wannabee guru trying to make a name for himself, sell magazine subscriptions, or both. Hell, I see it all over the forums, usually mentioned by some self-proclaimed expert attempting to demonstrate his vast knowledge.
Granted, the following is simply my opinion, I'm not trying to tell you what to do. Nonetheless, of all the considerations that go into choosing a handgun, this would be the last one on my list. That’s assuming it’s on the list at all. FYI, it’s never been on my list and here’s why.
First of all, when I’m going to use a firearm, in this case an automatic pistol, for serious work, I test it thoroughly, with the magazines and ammunition I am going to carry. At least one hundred fifty to three hundred trouble free rounds is generally my criteria. This especially if it’s a brand new handgun which may need a bit of breaking in.
Side note, I believe this is where the older, all steel, automatics got their bad rap for reliability. People bought them and never broke them in properly. I’ll leave it here because there’s more to it than just that and this subject could be a long post in and of itself.
Second, I normally use quality, proven, ammunition for both practice and carry. Not necessarily designer, boutique, or so-called hyper ammo, just good, basic ammo such as PMC, Remington, CCI, Winchester, and so forth. Granted, I don’t shoot as much as I used to, nonetheless I honestly can’t remember the last time I had an FTF due to an ammo failure (from a center-fire cartridge).
Third, if you’re in a serious situation and your gun doesn’t go bang when it should, why screw around attempting to fire it again? There could be many reasons as to why it didn’t go off, just go straight to a tap, rack, bang*, and be done with it. What would you do if you had a second strike capability and it didn’t go off the second or third time you pulled the trigger? So, why waste the time in the first place?
Thinking about this, of the pistols I bet my life on, none have a second strike capability and it doesn’t concern me in the least. Yeah, second strike capability, much ado about nothing...
Addendum: I should've added that one nice feature of a pistol with so-called second strike capability is in performing dry fire practice. I freely admit it becomes a PITA to work the slide for every trigger pull on a pistol without it.
Likewise, I should've stated that I would not, intentionally, rule out a handgun simply because it does have second strike capability. As for me, second strike capability is really a non-issue one way or the other. That's my take on the subject.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Joe Doakes' note: This treatise was written by “7677”, moniker of an esteemed ICCF member and administrator. A US Army veteran, former police officer, and now retired federal agent, 7677 is a highly experienced marksman, combat shooter, instructor, and innovator.
The One-Handed Draw Stroke
By 7677
The basic draw stroke that the majority of point shooters use was for the most part laid out in Fairbairn and Sykes book “Shooting to live”. However, in the book the draw stoke is not discussed it was assumed that people would pick up on it by doing the positions outlined in the book. The book teaches what I called a “low” draw stoke compare to the “high” draw stoke that is taught with Quick Fire.
The Master Grip, The first step of the draw is the master grip. The master grip is a firm grip of the firearm. (the master grip changes depending on which type of holster is being used)
Half-Hip, After the master grip is attained the weapon is drawn to the half hip position. The best-written explanation of this technique was by Dave James with Elbow Up/ Elbow down (EU/ED). This technique gets the out of the holster and on the target extremely fast. The inside of the elbow is driven into the side and when the shooter feels it hit his side he fires. (Now there have been debates on what “the side of the body” is and depending on the shooter the side can be the side of the body on the floating ribs or forward to the front of the body on the ribs above the stomach it depends on the size of the person and what they feel comfortable with.) The exact position of EU/ED largely depends on which point shooter you look at as Jelly Brice’s EU/ED position was different then Bill Jordan’s and the list goes on. The next consideration for the position of the elbow is the distance to your enemy. In Extreme close quarter situations elbow is going to be further back. Note: you might even find yourself in ¼ hip position.
Three-Quarters Hip, Once you are in the ½ hip (EU/ED) you transition to ¾ hip. The gun is brought up under your dominate eye with the elbow bent. The gun should be under the eye about 6 to 8 inches with the gun in your peripheral vision. NOTE: the pictures in Shooting to Live show the gun in the exact centerline of the body, however this is true for people with most cross dominate eyes but most people with dominate eyes on the same side as the shooting hand bring it under their dominate eye.
Point-Shoulder, After the ¾ hip the shooter transitions to the point shoulder. The Point shoulder comes from Rex Applegate’s book “Kill or Be Killed. The “point shoulder” position which the strong arm is thrusted out just under the line of sight under the dominant eye.
Convulsive Grip, A convulsive grip is used while shooting all of these positions. The convulsive grip limits how far the arm can be brought up with the point shoulder position. It also keeps the gun from bouncing around during rapid-fire drills while you transition though the above positions during the draw stroke.
The Zipper, The zipper the act of firing throughout your draw stoke and leaving a vertical line of bullets on the target. How far you make it through your draw stoke depends on how are your enemy is from you. The entire zipper drill is the following the first shot is taken at the EU/ED position and the shooter continues to rapid fire through the ¾ hip and point shoulder, which should place the rounds in the head.
Eyes, The gun should follow you eyes not your eyes following the gun. You should focus on a point COM and once you take your fist shot (EU/ED) shift your focus to you ending point and the gun with follow the path up the body from just below your first point to your ending point.
The Gun, At first practice shooting at 3 yards when you reach each position in the draw stroke. During these drills it is important that you look COM take your first shot (EU/ED), look at the target’s neck (3/4 hip), take the next shot, Then between the target’s eyes (Point Shoulder) and take the third shot. Once you are hitting the points you are focusing on then attempt a double tap at each position. Then when you get that down then attempt to shoot throughout the entire draw stroke. You should be able to get 4 to 6 rounds on the target. After you got this down then move to 5 yards and start over again. Remember, if you groups start to open up during rapid fire it is because your grip is too lose and you need to make it tighter. My grip starts at firm and becomes firmer “tighter” the faster I shoot my gun.
My comment here; once a person has mastered the above, add multiple targets, movement and cover and I feel a person would be a very well rounded shootist indeed.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Rule 1: "All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are."
Simply put, this forum will contain instructions and tips on how to safely unload, clear or proof (antiquated British term), and prove (the weapon is empty), various firearms are completely unloaded and safe to handle, store, or dry fire.
A few points I’d like to make, in no particular order:
You have to learn, and religiously abide by, the The Four Basic Rules of Firearms Safety, which can be found here: Firearms Safety Procedures along with additional safety information.
Always REFER TO THE OWNER'S MANUAL of your specific firearm for the final word on any operating procedures. I cannot emphasize this enough. They designed it, they manufactured it, they know how it works better that anyone else.
Whenever YOU touch a firearm, YOU must make certain it is safe (unloaded). Never, ever, take anyone’s word for it, regardless of who they are.
Whenever YOU touch a firearm, YOU must make certain it is safe (unloaded), even if you just cleared it and put it down. When you again pick it up, clear the weapon thus guaranteeing it is safe.
When you read or hear the term “safe direction” you have to THINK (⬅key word), “if the gun went off, where would the bullet go?” Safe direction means more than just your immediate area. It means also what’s beyond that area. Safe direction means towards something that will immediately stop the bullet, without allowing it to penetrate, should the firearm discharge. You have to THINK (⬅key word), “if the gun went off, would this _______ safely stop the bullet?”
The best advice I can give you is, if you're uncertain of anything pertaining to a firearm, BEFORE YOU TOUCH IT, seek PROFESSIONAL help. Then build yourself a set of safe operating procedures and stick to them religiously...and I do mean religiously.
The above points aren’t simply a disclaimer. They are essential things you have to know and practice as a responsible firearms handler.
To add; should anyone find any errors or unsafe practices in this forum's post, please notify me and they will be rectified.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
A post concerning GHB contents from esteemed ICCF member “Guantes” aka “Gloves”.
“One thing that I have in my GHB that I rarely see mentioned for GHBs is a four way sillcock key (pic below). This is a device for turning on tamper resistant or industrial hose bibs that are on the outside of many commercial or industrial buildings. Those hose bibs could become a valuable source of water on a trek home. They are available from Survival Resources for about ten bucks, which I consider a bargain.”
A steel 4-Way Sillcock Key fits 1/4”, 9/32”, 5/16” and 11/32” square stems
My reply was as follows:
FWIW, I completely agree. That's a damned good item to have Gloves, glad you mentioned it. I had a couple of those floating around the house/vehicle years ago. Actually, one was in my glove box for a long time. Came in handy a couple of times too, but not in an emergency situation. A good item to have for anyone, especially if you're an urbanite.
Here's a video from the site you mentioned, Gloves.
OK, one thing I want to mention, which he didn't, is let the water run a while before you drink it and/or fill your bottle. Many of the sources get used very infrequently and the water is just sitting in the pipes for months or longer. I know this from experience. Also, take a big drink and then top off the bottle before you're done. You never know where your next water supply will be.
Oh, and another tip learned from experience. Make sure you get a steel key and not a cheap pot metal one. Back in the late 70's, while I was at work, I actually split a socket on one trying to open a seized water spigot (or sillcock). Long story, but that cost me a lot of walkin' and it was a very hot day.
I forgot to mention, I like the hose idea shown in the video in post #10.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
Please note that the following are my thoughts on first-aid and medical kit considerations for both for myself and others who are not medical professionals, and have little to no formal training. I am not a medical professional nor do I play one on TV. I’m not even particularly interested in any aspect of the medical field. Yet having been sick or injured, at very inconvenient times, and not having any medicines or proper supplies to do anything about it but suffer, I sort of fell into it. The proverbial straw occurred on an extremely rare vacation and our young daughter ingested some lake water. That night she got a fever and stomachache. We forgot to bring medicines and such. But I digress. Additionally, none of what you’re about to read is intended to be taken as advice or directions. These are simply ideas, conjectures, observations, and deliberations. In other words, they’re something to think about.
Advice on, and definitions of, first-aid/medical kits are all over the map. They’re akin to BOBs, GHBs, and three day survival packs. I’ve seen people whose EDC (every day carry) kit would rival a big city hospital’s ER. Generally, and mind you this is simply my perspective on it based upon my experience, I feel people go way overboard on FAKs (and everything else for that matter). Some are sincerely trying to cover the bases, others are just blatant yuppie-esque gear-queers*. In any case, I thought I put together some thoughts and ideas on the subject to, perhaps, assist people to draw their own conclusions on the matter. Think it through, as thoroughly as possible, before you assemble a kit or kits. Oh and, IMO, don’t buy a kit, assemble your own.
Some things to consider:
What’s your level of training and experience in emergency first-aid and “Dr. Mom” medicine and how current are you?
What’s to be accomplished with this particular FAK?
Consider your history with needing some type of first-aid or administering it to others. In other words, do you even need a kit for this particular application and, if so, what type or types?
Is this kit for you alone, you and your family, or perhaps the general public?
Familiarize yourself with the purpose of, and the techniques for using, every item you include in your kit(s). Otherwise, you are merely accumulating rubbish and weight.
Once you establish what, specifically, the kit is intended to do, stick with that plan. Don’t get carried away with additional bells and whistles based upon “what-ifs” and possible bragging rights.
If you’re really serious about becoming a self-made medic, not just the owie-booboo/Dr. Mom kind, I suggest training in EFA, CPR, AED, and FAST for starters.
A few examples of the many variations of FAKs:
A personal or minor first-aid kit (irritatingly called a “boo-boo” or “snivel” kit) is just that. It’s for minor scratches, scrapes, and possibly a blister. Our daughter, who has three kids, two of them boys, made one up out of necessity and kept it in her purse. Contents included several antiseptic wipes, a few individual antibiotic ointment packets, and several sizes of band aids (including a couple big enough for a knee scrape), and a few cotton swabs to spread the antibiotic ointment around. That’s it. Perhaps, if you’re prone to afflictions such as headaches or heartburn, put some pain-reliever and antacids in it simply for convenience sake. Just about anyone with a little common sense can use a kit like this.
An individual first-aid kit or IFAK should be geared for you specifically and for your medical emergency possibilities, conceivably under abnormal or adverse conditions. It should be based upon your day-to-day way of life and, of course, your medical knowledge. As well, you should be able to use everything in it on yourself, without assistance, as you may be alone when the time comes. This applies principally to the trauma kit if such is included. Many experts proclaim that an IFAK is a trauma kit, I somewhat disagree. A trauma kit is a trauma kit**. If you’re on a SWAT entry team, as but one example, a trauma kit may be your IFAK while on the job. Nonetheless, a trauma kit might be included in an IFAK depending upon your specific requirements and training. Furthermore, you may want to toss your minor first-aid kit into the IFAK bag and have everything conveniently located.
To the best of my knowledge, my third kit example does not possess an official designation. I suppose you could call it a family or group first-aid/medical kit or bag, if you so choose. It’s easier for me to simply explain what I did and you can take it from there. For brevity’s sake I will leave out the tedious background (this concept started back in the ’80s and continued to evolve into the ’10s) as to why I eventually chose this scheme for mine and most of its evolution. Oh, and NO, this was definitely not an EDC kit. Honestly, I never carried an EDC FAK.
Moving on. Due to personal and professional circumstances at the time, I found a need to pack some basic FA supplies and both prescription and OTC medications and keep them with me in most cases. Akin to what many might call a travel FAK. It started out small, as a travel kit, nevertheless over time it grew. It seemed that whatever I left at home, my family, myself, or someone else, wound up needing. This usually when there were no drug stores available. Therefore, I decided just to take everything with me, so to speak. For those who think they might have to evacuate or bug-out someday, this would be a handy setup should one need to leave home in a hurry; all your medical supplies are already packed.
Being somewhat fastidious in certain areas, this turned into an interesting project for me. Over time I did a heck of a lot of research and analysis. This included speaking with EMTs, nurses, the occasional doctor, and even a special forces medic. This was mainly pertaining to OTC medications, which worked and which didn’t. You’d be amazed at what you can learn asking a simple question or two.
The initial, yet ever changing and increasing, contents included a descent general FAK, any prescription medication, and my preferred OTC meds, which covered most of the common maladies and injuries we all suffer from occasionally. In some cases I repackaged and labeled items into smaller containers. Then I somewhat categorized them and used zip-lock bags for storage of each category. This also eliminated unnecessary redundancy. In the beginning, all this fit well into an old M1936 musette bag that I had laying around, with the zip-locks thus creating a bag of bags. This made finding anything extremely easy. Times change and this evolved into a well stocked grab-n-go medical bag***. Think of it as a nicely supplied home medicine chest in a bag that you could take anywhere. Eventually, I did have to switch to a somewhat larger bag, a GI surplus, hard bottom, duffle type bag.
It paid off many times for my family, friends, and myself, and for various reasons. Thank God none of them were severe. I maintained it for years. Now I don’t need it as we don’t travel and we’re not “bugging out”.
Some noteworthy items (eventually) included were***:
Various medical instructional sheets, laminated (stored in the appropriate category’s zip-lock).
Sterilized hand towels (store in zip-lock or vacuum seal bags).
Eye wash and cup.
Note pad and several pencils.
Sawyer extractor.
There’s more but you get the idea.
Examples of other specific kits to consider are a dental FAK, a podiatric or foot FAK, an infant/toddler FAK (including child specific OTC meds), an adult/infant CPR kit, a trauma kit, and, if you have pets, a FAK for them as well. You may also want to consider a climatic based kit depending upon where you live or plan to go. There are also task specific kits to consider. Just ask yourself, for my skill level am I reasonably prepared for what I plan to do and where I plan to do it?
In summary:
If possible get training.
Don’t pack more that you need for the task at hand.
Don’t pack anything you don’t already know how to use.
Think; use your common sense.
--------------------------------------
* Gear-queer: an individual who excessively spends on premium equipment and/or supplies without possessing adequate knowledge of their purpose or usage. Typically a showoff, wannabe, or poser.
** Trauma kit: to the best of my knowledge and recollection, these weren’t a consideration back when I was out and about. For general first-aid, tourniquet usage, especially by amateurs, was highly frowned upon at that time. Direct pressure was in and considered the only way to go. In my FAK kit, I had gauze and clean towels for packing a wound and my belt to use as a tourniquet if need be. Were I to do this again, I would include a specific trauma kit (and I’d definitely take a FAST course). Training notwithstanding, I wouldn’t have anything in the kit I was not comfortable with or trained to use. That should apply to any and all other kits you assemble.
*** I’m not a gear-queer nor do I think I’m a paramedic or a doctor. Many of these items eventually wound up being in the bag for family health reasons at the time. Additionally, if I had to, I could relay some vital sign information to a medical professional. One example is my friends and I hunted, fished, camped, and hung out in some remote areas and in all seasons. My buddy’s cabin had no cell service and no landline. However, the house “next door” (about a half mile away up a hill) did. The nearest ambulance and hospital was at least 25-miles away. Some of these items would've paid off if the need arose. The basic first-aid and “Dr. Mom” things did and more than once.
Please note: prior to commenting or passing judgment, either in a positive or negative manner, I suggest you read About Joe Doakes’ Place and the Disclaimer
assuming you haven't already. Thank you.
