Category: Gun Info for Rookies
Some of you have noticed the Remington 870 SBS (short-barreled shotgun) that’s made some appearances in our defensive shotgun series over the last few weeks. Honestly, the shotgun isn’t all that remarkable aside from the NFA-length barrel.
Internally, it’s just like the millions of other 870s out there, and I’ve equipped it with some pretty mundane, albeit useful parts to make it more suitable for home defense.
But a lot of our readers and viewers have been asking questions about the 14-inch barrel and whether it’s something I would recommend, so that’s the topic of today’s video:
Video Review: Remington 870 SBS
I wasn’t planning to review this gun, but since I’ve been using it in the last few videos, you guys have been asking a lot of questions about it, so today I’m going to deliver some answers.
This is my Remington 870 12 gauge short barreled shotgun. It started out as a cheap surplus police shotgun that I bought with no barrel. If you look closely, you can tell that it’s pretty well used, but it’s in great mechanical condition.
I replaced the stock with a Magpul SGA stock. I’ve removed all of the spacers in order to get the length of pull as short as possible and I’ve added one of the Magpul cheek risers to raise the comb height.
The forend is also from Magpul. It’s actually not my favorite design — I’m not crazy about this lip here in the back, but I like that it’s really easy to attach a light.
You can put a piece of rail on any of these slots on the forend and attach whatever light you want. I’ve got this Inforce WMLX attached here, which works pretty well with the way I normally grip the forend.
The mag tube extension is the only accessory I kept that was on the shotgun when I bought it. It’s a Vang Comp Systems +1 extension, so I can get a total of five rounds in the tube.
The side saddle is also from Vang Comp. It’s a plate with Velcro on it that attaches with screws through the receiver. These Velcro-backed cards with the elastic loops just stick right to the plate.
The barrel is actually a Remington factory 14-inch barrel with a fixed modified choke. Remington doesn’t typically sell these to the general market, but you can sometimes find them on the auction sites.
I got this one for a little under $200. It came with XS express sights pre-installed — they’ve got a v-notch rear and a big white dot on the front. I’m not a big fan of the XS sights on handguns, but I really like them for this shotgun. I’ve found them to be a lot quicker to use than a ghost ring and more accurate than a bead sight.
The Remington 870 is probably the easiest platform to start with for a short barreled shotgun, because it doesn’t require any custom work and the factory barrels aren’t too hard to come by.
Because this shotgun has a barrel under 18-inches, it does fall under the National Firearms Act regulations. That basically means I had to pay a $200 tax and do a bunch of paperwork and wait a few months for Uncle Sam to process all that before I could legally install this barrel.
If you want to know more about how the whole NFA thing works, I’ll put a link to more information in the video description.
But I think the more pressing question a lot of you have is whether I think the short barrel is worth the extra $200. That’s going to depend a lot on your individual situation, but I do think it’s got some pretty compelling advantages.
I like the way the gun balances better versus a typical 18 inch barrel. It’s not a drastic difference, but it’s noticeable. It also doesn’t sacrifice much in terms of shot spread. I can easily keep all the pellets inside the vital zone of a target at 15 yards with Federal Flite Control 00 buckshot.
Most importantly though, the short barrel on the Remington 870 SBS is a lot more maneuverable inside a house.
I’ve done some dry practice at home and at the range with some obstacles set up and I was surprised at just how much easier it is to get around furniture and doors and that kind of thing.
I’m not suggesting anyone try to go hunt bad guys and clear their own house alone. But even just staying put in one room, the shorter barrel is easier to work with and for me, it also makes the gun a little quicker retrieve from where I have it stored.
There are some disadvantages to the short barreled shotgun. It’s got a shorter magazine tube than you can get with a longer barrel, and that means you have one or two fewer rounds of ammo capacity.
More ammo is certainly a good thing, but I’ve explained before why capacity is not nearly as critical with a shotgun as with a handgun or a carbine.
The purpose of using a shotgun to solve a problem is precisely because historically, they haven’t required multiple hits to stop a threat.
To paraphrase Tom Givens, if you’ve got five rounds in a shotgun, then you’ve got a “five bad guy gun.” And personally, I’m pretty happy with that.
Capacity is not the only perceived disadvantage. The short barrel may not be as PR friendly as a more typical shotgun and that might be a big deal for some people. You also have to fill out paperwork and get permission from the ATF any time you want to take a short barreled shotgun across state lines, which is kind of a pain if you travel a lot.
Overall, for me personally, I think the benefits of the 14-inch barrel outweigh the potential disadvantages but it’s not what I’d call an essential modification.
If you’ve already got a decent shotgun with an 18 or 20-inch barrel, your money is probably better spent on a few cases of ammo and a good training class.
But if you’ve still got some room in the budget after that, I do think the short barrel makes the shotgun more convenient to use and might be worth considering.
—
Ten years ago this rifle would’ve been the pinnacle of a precision competition build. It’s still a very nice rifle, but modern options give you a lot more flexibility for your money.
Get A Grip: Stocks In The Modern Era of PRS
Evolution is a constant state—especially in precision rifle competition where manufacturers look to improve and upgrade products to give an advantage wherever possible. While the rifle stock may seem like a pretty simple thing, it has evolved with the sport as much as optics and ammunition have.
The rifle stock is a vital part of the overall precision rifle system because it is the one part you interact with the most on the rifle. I like to say that a good precision rifle stock should fit you like an old pair of dusty boots so that when you get behind the gun you’re comfortable and relaxed. But picking the right stock for your precision rig can be a challenge because of the sheer number of options and accessories available.
What Is A Good Rifle Stock?
Before I get too deep into the weeds, I think I need to come right out and say that most of the stocks that come on factory varmint or long range rifles are pretty terrible. All too often they’re made from cheap plastic that’s too flexible for serious use and generally have poor ergonomics that don’t fit the shooter at all. This is why stocks are one of the first things to get replaced when a person gets a new long range rifle.
A stock that’s going to be good for long range competition use has to be made from a durable, rigid material that free floats the barrel and is adjustable to fit the shooter perfectly. A lot of different stocks are going to fit this bill and they generally fall into two categories: traditional composite stocks or chassis systems.
A chassis system like this Accuracy International AX AICS provides on-the-fly adjustability, a folding stock, a built-in detachable magazine system, and modularity that is hard for a composite stock to match.
Chassis Systems
Believe it or not, chassis systems were once looked down on by the long-range community. But that tide has turned as chassis systems have become more accepted for precision rifle builds. It should be noted that nearly every major rifle manufacturer makes a chassis rifle now and the US military’s M2010, M40A6, and Mk 13 sniper rifles use chassis systems. It’s not all that surprising that chassis systems have gained the popularity that they have given the enormous bang for the buck that they can provide.
One might be inclined to start off by extolling the virtues of the chassis bedding interface and how it doesn’t require the shooter to bed the action. To an extent this is true, but I’d like to start by talking about the adjustability of the chassis’ stock because this is where they begin to come into their own. Some stocks will start out as a non-adjustable base model but almost every chassis system that I’ve come across has had an adjustable length of pull (LOP) and adjustable cheek piece right off the bat. This is important on a competition rifle so that the gun can perfectly fit the shooter. Some chassis go beyond simple LOP and cheek adjustments though and allow the butt pad height and angle to be set, as well as allowing lateral adjustment to the cheek rest for the ultimate in shooter comfort. It’s not uncommon to also see some chassis systems like those from XLR Industries or MDT be compatible with AR-15 stocks and pistol grips for end-user customization.
Many chassis systems on the market offer a fully adjustable buttstock that provides cheek height adjustment and length of pull adjustment, in addition to sling attachment points. Some models, like this Accuracy International chassis, offer additional adjustments of the butt plate to set it up perfectly for your shoulder.
Since the action area on a chassis systems is made from aluminum it’s easy for them to set up for a detachable box magazine (DBM) system from the get-go, which is a necessary feature on a modern competition rifle. I remember a time when a having a DBM wasn’t really that big of an advantage but now many courses of fire are designed around having at least 10 rounds in the rifle at the start. Given that the magazine well is machined into the chassis, it’s another part you that don’t have to buy and have installed. This keeps costs down for the shooter who may be on a budget and also increases the overall reliability of the DBM system.
The great thing about some aluminum chassis systems like those from XLR Industries or Modular Driven Technologies is that they are compatible with AR-15 stocks and grips. Using the same tools you wrench on your AR with you can install a new pistol grip or stock to suit your fancy.
Folding stocks on a precision competition rifle are a beautiful thing for many reasons, and not just for making the overall length of the rifle shorter. A folding stock makes it easier to bore sight the rifle or clean the bore without having to make any changes to the cheek piece.
Where a chassis really makes its money on a competition rifle, setting itself apart from more traditional composite stocks, is in its modularity and ability to the adapt to the situation. Most chassis forends will have built-in modularity to some degree, even if it is just being able to place rail sections in different places. This opens up the ability to mount bipods where you want them, barricade stops, and sling mounting positions where they are comfortable for you. Furthermore, some chassis (like the ones from MasterPiece Arms) have features like moveable barricade stops that can almost lock a gun into a barricade for better stability, integrated ARCA compatible cuts for tripod mounting, and the ability to easily add a night vision rail. Now, not everyone is going to need all of that modularity all the time so you can run the forend slick if you want, but the capability is there for when you need it.
Detachable magazine systems are a must-have feature for a chassis or stock that’s going to be used for precision rifle competition. This author recommends sticking with AICS pattern magazines since it is the most common and proven type of magazine in the circuit. All four rifles in this picture are using AICS pattern magazines so if you forget one or have one go bad, someone will be able to spot you in the short term.
Modularity is where chassis systems separate themselves from traditional composite stocks because with the aid of a wrench the location of rails, flush cups, and bipod mounts can be moved around at will. Some chassis are even M-Lok and Keymod compatible so some of the same accessories that you use on your AR-15 can be used on your precision rifle.
MasterPiece Arms takes chassis modularity to the next level with machine work that borders on the artistic. The grooves machined into the sides of the chassis are Arca Swiss compatible for direct tripod mounting and the holes along the bottom are for setting up their barricade stop system, which is great for PRS skills stages.
As good as chassis systems are they do have a couple of drawbacks, chief among them being their weight. Most systems weigh on average about five to six pounds. Add in a barreled action, scope, and bipod and the total weight can easily balloon north of 16 pounds. However, sometimes that weight can be an advantage, and many competitions don’t really require a lot of long-distance movement so the benefits could be worth the extra heft.
A pretty trick feature of the MasterPiece Arms chassis is a built-in leveling system to make sure that you’re reticle won’t be canted for those long-range shots on small targets.
The bedding interface is where chassis systems are either loved or hated. Their loved because they often negate the need for an expensive epoxy bedding jobs and hated because sometimes they have to be skim bedded anyway. Traditional V-block bedding blocks like the one on the left is a common configuration in many chassis systems but some manufacturers are improving them, like the Accuracy International chassis on the right. The ridges on either side of the action screws provide increased support at the tang and front of the action to reduce the possibility of the action being stressed once torque is applied.
Left folding buttstocks are a dime a dozen on many chassis but a right hand folding stock on a chassis keeps the overall width to a minimum since it will nest with the bolt handle. A relatively small detail but a nice one nonetheless when you’re looking to make the package as small as possible for storage or transport.
The other drawback to a chassis is that sometimes the bedding interface doesn’t play well with some actions and induces stress, which can hurt consistent accuracy. An easy test to see if your chassis might be causing stress in the action is to torque both action screws down and then loosen the front action screw while holding the barrel at the end of the barrel channel. If the bedding interface is stress-free, you won’t be able to notice any movement of the barrel in the channel once the screw is loosened. If there is stress in the action you will feel the barrel move upwards, but it’s not the end of the world. You can sometimes play with the torque settings and still get good accuracy. However, if nothing seems to work, it could be that the chassis needs to be skim bedded to the action at the recoil lug pocket and rear tang.
This Manners Composite Stocks T6 is the latest evolution of a traditional composite stock for PRS-type competition. It’s lighter, with better adjustments, some level of modularity, and, yes, it’s magazine fed. According to the owner, this stock costs about $1,100+ with a six month lead time, but he said the cost was well worth it considering the quality and comfort. So in a way, it’s the Cadillac of composite stocks, I suppose.
Traditional-Style Composite Stocks
Although chassis systems have become hugely popular, traditional-style stocks like the ones from McMillan and Manners Composite still have a place on the firing line. The materials and methods used to construct these stocks have been around for decades, which is really what I mean when I say traditional. So, what’s going to push someone towards a traditional-style stock versus a modern chassis system? One reason has got to be the custom nature of these stocks since they are made by hand-laying fiberglass, kevlar, carbon fiber, or a combination of materials into specific molds. This allows nearly every facet of the stock to be determined by the customer, from the material to the color, to finally what features and adjustments it will have. This method of construction also means when finished that these stocks are often one-piece, very solid, and impervious to the elements, all of which are important in a precision rifle stock.
While the Manners T6 pictured earlier featured their mini-chassis, most traditional composite stocks need to be epoxy bedded in something like Marine Tex or Devcon Steel Puddy. When done properly it will look like the above bedding job that matches the action perfectly to give it a nice, stress-free resting place for consistent accuracy.
Traditional-style stocks will also have a different feel compared to chassis systems with softer lines and a more comfortable grip that’s an easy transition for some shooters. Traditional-style stocks are also lighter in comparison to many chassis systems, which can be an important factor for a shooter if they plan to carry the rifle long distances. The use of carbon fiber in making traditional-style stocks is becoming more commonplace, allowing manufacturers to put out a stock that weighs less than two pounds depending on options.
Although traditional-style stocks are made by hand compared to the CNC machined chassis systems, they are available with some of the same features. The only difference is that on a traditional-style stock you start out with a base model and then everything else is an add-on option. In a lot of ways, it’s not so different from ordering a car. Sling swivels, for example, can include quick detach sling mounts on a traditional stock, just as you can on a chassis, but you have to tell the manufacturer how many and where you want them. Also, unlike many chassis systems, once these mounts are installed, they can’t be moved, so if you want another one at another location you have you’ll have to drill some more holes.
The KMW Loggerhead cheek piece is an option on Manners stocks and is widely considered a standard by which other adjustable cheek pieces are judged by. It’s very secure and will not loosen up under recoil like older designs such as the saddle cheek piece that was held in place by two small set screws.
Cheekpiece and length of pull adjustments are also present on a traditional stock but executed a little differently compared to a chassis. The length of pull adjustments on a traditional-style stock is usually done via a spacer system, which is effective and robust but a little slow and clumsy. For the purposes of precision rifle matches, you definitely want an adjustable cheek piece and they come in many forms.
Unlike chassis, in order to run a detachable magazine system in a traditional composite stock, it requires a separate trigger guard to be installed. Often the stock needs to be inlet for the specific trigger guard and the bedding pillars set to the correct depth so that it will work reliably. The Badger Ordnance M5 pattern is the most common inlet for these types of systems but a few manufacturers have their own proprietary profile that can complicate things.
Traditional composite stocks can sometimes be accused of being less modular than their chassis brethren but a few companies are looking to change that outlook. Area419, for example, makes an Arca Swiss compatible accessory rail with a built-in barricade stop that bolts to the bottom of the stock without modification.
Truth be told, the older systems from McMillan—like the saddle cheek rest and thumb screw cheek rests— were pretty horrible, they came loose all the time and could strip set screws. In fact, when I had a saddle cheek piece on my McMillan A-5 I had to put spacers underneath it to keep it from collapsing all the way while I was shooting. The newer clamp bar and KMW Loggerhead cheek pieces are far superior for a traditional-style stock since they lock down tight and don’t move under recoil. Unlike chassis systems, traditional style stocks do not come with a DBM system out of the box. It’s usually a separate item that needs to be purchased and installed with specific bedding pillars to ensure it will function reliably. This is just another cost that needs to be added to the budget when buying a competition-ready stock.
So, what are some of the downsides to a traditional-style stock? Well, first, the cost is pretty steep since you start out with a baseline stock and all of those options needed to make it competition-ready really eat into your wallet. $15 per sling mount here, $200 for a detachable magazine system there, and it adds up quick. Before long. you have a stock that exceeds the cost of a high-end chassis, but hey, at least it’s lighter. The lead times can also be pretty extraordinary, too, since each stock is made-to-order and done by hand. Where you can sometimes get a chassis in a couple days, a traditional-style stock can take up to half a year to arrive, and even then it could require additional work to get it ready for prime time.
It’s not a new concept for a manufacturer to drop one of their barreled actions into a composite stock and send it out the door as a factory precision rifle. However, as manufacturing has improved and new materials get used, rifle makers can provide a composite stock like the one on this Bergara HMR that has all the features a precision rifle competitor needs at a fraction of the cost.
Conclusion
If you’re in the market for a new stock, my recommendation is to try to get behind some different types and see how they feel and what features they have. We’ll call it a test drive. Usually, if you ask nicely, some guys will let you send a few rounds downrange as well. There’s nothing worse then ordering a new stock, waiting months for it to arrive, and then come to the realization that you hate how it feels. I know, I’ve done it. There’s a wide world of options out there, but my advice is to stick with well-established brands with a history on the competition circuit.
If you value lighter weight with a few extra features, then perhaps the traditional-style stock is for you. Weight not being a concern, but you need adjustability, modularity, and you need it fast, then a chassis is probably right up your alley. Just remember that a good stock should fit you like an old pair of dusty boots. Your shooting will thank you later.
Bayou Renaissance Man
If you’re one of those who says that you’ll rely on the police to protect you, rather than take steps to be able to defend yourself and your family if necessary, consider this.
Michael Lewis is the Sheriff in Wicomico County, and was also a Sergeant with the Maryland State Police. He joined Ed Norris and Steve Davis on Thursday to talk about the alleged controversial orders the police were given during the riots.
. . .
“They said we could have handled this, we were very capable of handling this, but we were told to stand down, repeatedly told to stand down,” he said. “I had never heard that order come from anyone — we went right out to our posts as soon as we got there, so I never heard the mayor say that.
But repeatedly these guys, and there were many high-ranking officials from the Baltimore City Police Department … and these guys told me they were essentially neutered from the start. They were spayed from the start.
They were told to stand down, you will not take any action, let them destroy property. I couldn’t believe it, I’m a 31-year veteran of law enforcement. … I had never heard anything like this before in my life and these guys obviously aren’t gonna speak out and the more I thought about this, … I had to say a few things. I apologize if I’ve upset people, but I believe in saying it like it is.”
Lewis said though he didn’t hear the order to stand down come from the mayor, he did hear it from police officials.
“I heard it myself over the Baltimore City police radio that I had tethered to my body-armor vest, I heard it repeatedly. ‘Stand down, stand down, stand down! Back up, back up, retreat, retreat!’ I couldn’t believe those words.
Those are words I’ve never heard in my law enforcement vocabulary,” he said. “Baltimore City police, all law enforcement agencies are very capable of handling that city. They’re trained to handle that city. These guys were hearing words that had never been echoed in their lives, in their careers.”
There’s more at the link.
What happens if you rely on the cops to protect you, but the politicians in charge of those cops think it’s more important for their image, or their re-electability, or for whatever politically correct reasons, to stop the cops from doing their job?
It matters not whether it’s a riot situation such as Sheriff Lewis is describing, or a problem with community relations that stops police from carrying out their normal duties. Where does that leave you?
I’ll tell you where it leaves you. Up the creek without a paddle.
I only hope that all my readers have the sense to read Sheriff Lewis’ words and draw the appropriate conclusions from them. Your safety is first and foremost in yourhands – no-one else’s. Train and prepare accordingly.
Peter
What follows any controversial deadly encounter caught on camera is a barrage of opinions from keyboard commandoes and wannabe legal experts claiming to know “the truth” about the circumstances surrounding the shooting, about whether the use of force was justified, about what will happen to the defendant, etc. etc. etc.
While it’s fine for average Joes to weigh in, it’s quite another when they attempt to pass off their opinions as real expertise.
In an attempt to elevate the level of discussion out here on the Interwebs, GunsAmerica reached out to two attorneys to get actual professional insight on that fatal shooting in a Florida parking lot last month that has everyone talking (see video above).
One is a defense attorney who specializes in all things 2A-related and who regularly handles firearms criminal defense cases; the other is a 2A-friendly prosecutor with tons of jury trial experience prosecuting murders and an Iraq war vet.
Both asked that we not disclose their identities because they’d rather not deal with butthurt Internet trolls messaging them at their offices.
The Q&A:
Question 1. To start, let’s forget Florida law and the specific details of the case for just a moment, and just ask a general question. Under what circumstances, if any, is one justified in using deadly force against an individual who just shoved him or her to the ground?
Seems to me that if there’s not a glaring disparity of force in play, like maybe a grown man violently shoving a fragile 90-year-old woman to the ground and seriously injuring her, then it’s hard to think of a situation when a shove warrants the use of lethal force. Your thoughts?
Defense Attorney: I agree. I think it’s really a stretch to think there’s ever a time that you could simply shoot someone for just pushing you to the ground. Usually, to justify using deadly force you need to have a reasonable belief that you are going to be seriously injured or killed.
Being pushed just doesn’t get you there. I’m not sure that a disparity of force would even get you there unless you reasonably believed the violence was going to continue and that this was your only chance to survive being killed.
If we want to get creative, we could argue that a push could be deadly if it was over a cliff, or into a speeding car, raging river, etc. Even that is different from the facts here because in those examples it’s not the push that will cause you the imminent harm, it’s the landing.
Prosecutor: Let me put it this way. Unless you are made of glass and your bones will shatter from the fall, you do NOT have the right to use deadly force from a mere shove to the ground. The jury is not going to buy that as a reasonable use of force in any state.
Question 2. Turning to the case, the available facts indicate that 47-year-old Michael Drejka shot and killed 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton in July after McGlockton shoved Drejka the ground. What prompted McGlockton to push Drejka was the fact that Drejka had confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend who had parked in a handicap space at a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri initially announced that he would not arrest Drejka because the shooting “is within the bookends of ‘stand your ground’ and within the bookends of force being justified.” He added, “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call.”
We found out this week, however, that Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe is charging Drejka with “manslaughter.”
“I went through it all and made the legal decision that that is the charge that we could prove,” McCabe told NBC News.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but is it common for there to be such a disconnect between the way law enforcement analyzes a case and the way prosecutors analyze a case? I mean there’s a huge gap between “That shooting was lawful, so no arrest” and “Nope, that’s manslaughter,” right?
Defense Attorney: It’s actually pretty common for law enforcement to get this stuff wrong. This is complicated stuff. Remember that most of the time law enforcement aren’t lawyers, they didn’t go to law school or pass the bar. They get trained and taught by lawyers and, let’s face it, even lawyers get stuff wrong regularly.
Most people don’t know but there is a prosecutor on call in most counties all night long to answer legal questions for police officers.
In fact, if law enforcement didn’t ever make mistakes there’d be almost no need for defense attorneys. Also, the prosecutor, in this case, had time to review the video, read the police reports, study the law, and make a decision on what he feels he can prove to a jury.
The police had to decide on the scene what to do without the benefit of hindsight, and they chose not to arrest.
I’m sure the reason Drejka is being charged with manslaughter rather than murder is because there’s a defense to murder if provoked by a hit or a push called the “heat of passion” wherein you have an uncontrollable state of mind. It doesn’t usually get you off, but often will reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter.
Prosecutor: I’m finding it very hard not to criticize law enforcement on this. They should have been able to see the video immediately at the scene, and we depend on them to understand the basics.
It was patently the wrong call. “Within the bookends of stand your ground?” BZZZZ! Wrong! Stand your ground means that Drejka did not have to run away. It did not (and would not in Florida or any other state) relieve Drejka of the need to “reasonably believe[] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself” before he shoots! Florida Code 776.012, 776.013.
That reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to save is written into every self-defense law in the nation, including Stand Your Ground states. Any presumption of innocence in this case was clearly rebutted by the video depiction of the crime. Yeah, the cops got it wrong. Embarrassing.
Question 3. Speaking of Stand Your Ground, which states in part, “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…” does it apply to this case?
Defense Attorney: I think that you’re looking at the wrong part of the statute. What you’re looking at are the requirements to use deadly force or to threaten someone with deadly force. We often call those the requirements for self-defense.
If you don’t meet those requirements and you use deadly force you could be charged with murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravated battery. If you don’t meet those requirements and you threaten someone with deadly force you could be charged with aggravated assault, or brandishing.
Generally, “stand your ground” literally means that you don’t have a duty to retreat or run if you’re in a place that you are legally and lawfully allowed to be in. In plain English, you don’t need to run if you aren’t breaking any laws or if the conflict isn’t your fault.
It does not give you the right to use deadly force. The only the time a person can use deadly force is if that person, “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…”.
Imminent death would be death that is just about to happen, death on the verge of happening, death that is going to happen at any moment, etc.
Great bodily harm would be things like, loss of a limb or organ, brain damage, rape, etc.
The majority of states have Stand Your Ground laws. When you combine Stand Your Ground with the Self Defense laws it allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves or others from people that would kill or seriously injure them and removes the requirement to run away from danger. It’s that simple.
Also, in this situation, I think you could make a case for McGlockton having the right to stand his ground and protect his girlfriend. The facts, as I understand them, are that Drejka was harassing McGlockton’s girlfriend for parking in a handicapped parking space.
Drejka is not law enforcement and has no right to be enforcing the law. There’s a possibility, depending on the level of harassment, that McGlockton was legally defending his girlfriend when he pushed Drejka.
Prosecutor: Agreed. Stand Your Ground laws meant that Drejka did not have to run away. But that doesn’t mean he could blow this guy away without any reasonable fear for his life. Leftists like to treat this case like Stand Your Ground actually allows the use of deadly force here. That is misinformation, and when misinformed conservatives agree with it, they are playing into liberal hands.
Question 4. It appears from the video that McGlockton made no further attempt to physically harm or attack Drejka. Yet, Drejka drew his gun and fired anyhow. Supposing that’s the gist of it and there’s nothing else to contradict that analysis, does that rise to the level of imminent death or great bodily harm?
Defense Attorney: I certainly think that Drejka made a huge mistake. I didn’t see any actions from McGlockton that made me think Drejka was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. McGlockton had no weapon and his body language wasn’t aggressive after the push. It looks to me like he wanted Drejka to leave his girlfriend alone. I don’t know what was said but usually it takes more than words to create imminent danger.
I’m a huge believer in self-defense, stand your ground, and the Second Amendment. I would struggle with being Drejka’s defense attorney in this case because I think he took a life that he wasn’t justified in taking.
Prosecutor: This video just flat-out convicts Drejka. It’s just so hard to justify shooting someone as they walk away. It just makes it impossible to effectively argue that Drejka had a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Question 5. Lastly, what advice would you give to concealed carriers who find themselves in a situation where they notice someone breaking the law, assuming it’s not a forcible felony?
Defense Attorney: Most of the time my advice is to call 911, be a good witness, take notes, pictures, or video and try not to get involved. If it’s a forcible felony (rape, kidnap, murder, etc.) or someone is in imminent danger of serious injury or death, then you have a harder decision to make. Proceed with caution, be skeptical, and avoid shooting your gun unless it’s absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, make sure you hit what you are aiming at. Afterward, don’t talk to the police or anyone else until you’ve consulted an attorney.
Prosecutor: For misdemeanors, don’t try to be the police – call them instead. If someone is being attacked, just remember that you have to reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm before you use deadly force. And remember you have to live with your decision long term.
From –
The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
Defensive ammunition when you can’t use hollowpoints
I’ve had an interesting series of exchanges with a correspondent in New Jersey concerning the best handgun for self-defense there. Since many of my readers live in states with firearms laws that are as restrictive as NJ’s (and in some places, such as New York and Connecticut, show signs of getting even worse), I thought the subject might be of more general interest.The first point is that in New Jersey, it’s virtually impossible to get a carry permit unless you have outstandingly good political connections.
The ‘system’ there is designed to issue as few permits as possible. Furthermore, there are severe restrictions on the carrying and use of hollow-point or expanding ammunition in one’s handgun.
(That restriction doesn’t apply to law enforcement personnel, of course . . . yet another reason for resentment. If it’s good enough for cops, why shouldn’t it be good enough for honest citizens whose taxes pay those cops and buy their ammunition?)
These restrictions upset the normal calculation about what cartridge or round New Jersey gun-owners (and others suffering under similar restrictions) should use for self-defense.
These restrictions upset the normal calculation about what cartridge or round New Jersey gun-owners (and others suffering under similar restrictions) should use for self-defense.
Modern bullet technology has brought many common defensive handgun cartridges to a much higher level of performance.
However, if that technology can’t be used, cartridge effectiveness must be assessed in terms of older measurements. I’m obliged to the anonymous editor of the Firearms History blog for his very useful articles on the following systems of measurement:
- Kinetic energy
- Momentum
- Taylor KO Factor
- Thorniley Stopping Power Formula
- Hatcher Formula
- Optimum Game Weight Formula
Follow each link for more information about the formula in question. Not all are useful in a defensive context, but they’re all informative. (We’ve discussed some of them in articles here.
As an old Africa hand, I’m partial to the Taylor KO measurement as an indication of the effectiveness of solid [i.e. non-expanding] bullets.
It squares with my experience of shooting in Africa, be the target an animal or an enemy. In particular, I agree with its bias towards larger-diameter bullets when dealing with solids.)
To get back to the self-defense situation, if gun-owners are restricted in their use of expanding handgun ammunition, they have to choose the most effective cartridge available under those restrictions.
To get back to the self-defense situation, if gun-owners are restricted in their use of expanding handgun ammunition, they have to choose the most effective cartridge available under those restrictions.
That immediately argues against most smaller calibers, because (according to most of the above formulas, and also on the basis of hard-earned experience) they’re less effective than larger ones in a defensive role.
Furthermore, one of the primary advantages of smaller cartridges is that one can fit more of them into a handgun of a given size compared to larger cartridges.
However, if (thanks to restrictions on bullet technology) each cartridge is rendered less effective, more of them will be needed to neutralize an opponent than larger ones; and if magazine capacity is also legally restricted, that means that a greater percentage of your rounds will be needed per opponent than if you used larger ones.
Example: if it takes 4-5 9mm. Parabellum ball rounds to stop an assailant, and you only have 10 of them in your gun, you’ll use up to 50% of your ’rounds on board’ to stop each opponent.
If it takes 2-3 .45 ACP ball rounds to do the same thing, and you have 10 of them in your gun, you’ll be able to deal with twice the number of attackers for the same expenditure of ammunition.
Despite modern attempts to reinterpret historical data, it’s clear that throughout the blackpowder era, bigger, heavier bullets did a better job of stopping a fight in a hurry than smaller, lighter ones.
Despite modern attempts to reinterpret historical data, it’s clear that throughout the blackpowder era, bigger, heavier bullets did a better job of stopping a fight in a hurry than smaller, lighter ones.
That’s why the most widely used handgun cartridges up until the invention of smokeless powder were over .40″ in caliber; for example, the US .44-40, .44 American, .44 Russian, .44 Bull Dog, .45 Colt and .45 Schofield, and the British .450 Adams, .442 Webley, .476 Enfield and .455 Webley.
Although smokeless powder allowed the introduction of newer, smaller cartridges with similar (or improved) effectiveness compared to their blackpowder predecessors, this was not always the case.
Bigger, heavier cartridges still tended to do better than smaller ones at ending an attack, as the infamous Moro rebellion demonstrated.
It was the experience of that conflict that prompted the US Army to replace its newly-issued Colt M1892 revolvers chambered in .38 Long Colt. As General Leonard Wood reported in 1904:
“Instances have repeatedly been reported during the past year where natives have been shot through and through several times with a .38 caliber revolver, and have come on, usually cutting up the unfortunate individual armed with it. The .45 caliber revolver stops a man in his tracks, usually knocking him down.”
This led initially to the reissue of older Colt Single Action Army revolvers (the famous ‘Peacemaker’ of the so-called ‘Wild West’), and ultimately to the adoption of the renowned M1911 pistol and its .45 ACP cartridge.
It remained the US Army’s standard sidearm until the adoption of the Beretta Model 92 in 1985, and is still issued by specialist units. As late as the 1980’s, during investigations following the notorious ‘Miami Massacre‘ that sent shock-waves through US law enforcement, it’s reported that “the FBI rated the .45 ACP twice as effective as the 9 mm“.
That certainly correlates with my experience of handgun use in Southern Africa during that period.
Please note that I’m not by any means opposed to the use of smaller cartridges, provided that modern bullet technology is used.
Please note that I’m not by any means opposed to the use of smaller cartridges, provided that modern bullet technology is used.
My daily carry pistols are chambered for the 9mm. Parabellum cartridge, for reasons outlined here. I load them with either Winchester Ranger T-series 127gr. JHP +P+ or the more recent Hornady Critical Duty 135gr. JHP +P rounds, and trust both to do a good job in defense of my life if necessary.
The latter round in particular is attracting serious interest due to its performance under all likely circumstances, as outlined in this video from Hornady. It’s reported to be the only range of handgun ammo to pass every FBI test criterion with flying colors.
However, if for some reason I couldn’t carry expanding ammunition, my instant response response would be to revert to handguns chambered in .45 ACP or .40 S&W[respectively my first and second choices], loaded with the best-quality ball rounds I could find.
That’s why I keep firearms in my safe chambered for both cartridges. Furthermore, as Jim Higginbotham points out, it’s hard to make a .45 ACP bullet perform badly!
The late, great Jeff Cooper used to opine that an adequate defensive bullet in a handgun, irrespective of bullet type, shape, etc., should be at least .40″ in diameter, weigh at least 200 grains, and exit the muzzle at a velocity of at least 1,000 feet per second.
The late, great Jeff Cooper used to opine that an adequate defensive bullet in a handgun, irrespective of bullet type, shape, etc., should be at least .40″ in diameter, weigh at least 200 grains, and exit the muzzle at a velocity of at least 1,000 feet per second.
Multiplying those factors together, we arrive at a total of 80,000. If we use those factors and that total to assess the effectiveness of the most common semi-auto pistol cartridges, using ball ammunition, we can see how they stack up against each other:
- .45 ACP: .451″ x 230 grains x 830 fps (US Army standard ball) = 86,096
- .40 S&W: .401″ x 180 grains x 1,020 fps (Winchester Q4238) = 73,624
- 9mm Parabellum: .355″ x 115 grains x 1,190 fps (Winchester Q4172) = 48,582
Those values are pretty much in line with what the older measurements (referred to above) give us in terms of bullet effectiveness, and in line with extensive experience ‘on the street’.
They also bear out the FBI’s finding during the 1980’s that the .45 ACP round was about twice as effective as 9mm. Parabellum. The more modern ‘intermediate’ .40 S&W round (introduced in 1990) falls between them in performance according to Cooper’s scale.
I’m confident enough in either .40 S&W or .45 ACP ball to use them for defensive purposes if necessary. As long as I put enough of them in the right place(s), they’ll get the job done.
Of course, one can never rely on a single bullet being sufficient to stop an attacker. I’ve covered this extensively in three articles dealing with ‘The myth of handgun “Stopping Power”.’
Of course, one can never rely on a single bullet being sufficient to stop an attacker. I’ve covered this extensively in three articles dealing with ‘The myth of handgun “Stopping Power”.’
For that reason, the most effective cartridge/bullet combination should be chosen, and enough of them should be delivered to do the job.
If the magazine capacity of one’s pistol is restricted, this means that expending four or five smaller rounds on each attacker can rapidly empty one’s gun, rendering it useless until reloaded.
Far better to have larger, more capable rounds in the gun, each one as effective as possible, so that the same magazine capacity will allow one to deal with more attackers.
What handgun to carry it in? That’s very much a matter of personal preference. Some prefer the ‘old reliable’ 1911 pistol, and I certainly can’t argue as to its effectiveness.
What handgun to carry it in? That’s very much a matter of personal preference. Some prefer the ‘old reliable’ 1911 pistol, and I certainly can’t argue as to its effectiveness.
Some more modern full-size .45 ACP pistols, such as the Glock 21, the Springfield XD or the Taurus 24/7, have improved on the 1911’s limited ammunition supply, and hold 13-14 rounds.
Unfortunately, as far as my hands are concerned, this makes their grips too ‘fat’ for comfort. I prefer a narrower grip that I can grasp more firmly.
My choice is the Ruger SR45. Its magazine holds only 10 rounds, but that allows its grip to be much slimmer, making it easier for me to grasp; and the gun’s slightly greater weight helps me to absorb the cartridge’s recoil during extended practice sessions (don’t forget, I have health limitations, so that’s an important factor for me).
Some other gun writers don’t like the Ruger SR series, but I do. Ed Head, instructor, Rangemaster and former Operations Manager at Gunsite Academy, offered high praise in his review: “If I could go back in time to my Border Patrol days I would take the SR45 with me for a duty pistol. It’s that good.“
Mine have proven reliable in my hands, and it’s easy to disable their magazine safety (a feature I detest on any defensive handgun). I’ve standardized on this model as my full-size .45 ACP pistol.
In .40 S&W, I’ve standardized on the Glock Model 22 and Model 23 (just as, in 9mm. Parabellum, I’ve standardized on other Glock models).
Small .45 ACP pistols tend to be uncomfortable to shoot for extended periods, because they don’t have the heft or the weight to absorb as much recoil as larger weapons. There are many possibilities out there, ranging from the Glock 36, to Springfield’s XD-S, to Kahr’s CW45 (the model I use) and many others.
Small .45 ACP pistols tend to be uncomfortable to shoot for extended periods, because they don’t have the heft or the weight to absorb as much recoil as larger weapons. There are many possibilities out there, ranging from the Glock 36, to Springfield’s XD-S, to Kahr’s CW45 (the model I use) and many others.
I don’t normally carry a small pistol chambered for such a big cartridge, because I find it painful to practice with them for extended periods.
However, if I were denied the ability to carry expanding ammunition and/or a high-capacity magazine, I’d live with the discomfort and switch to my Kahr CW45 in a heartbeat for deep-concealment scenarios (i.e. pocket or ankle carry – I’d rely on my Ruger SR45 for ‘normal’ holster carry). I also have a Glock 27, which would be my ‘go-to’ small pistol in the .40 S&W cartridge.
One final point. Big cartridges such as the .45 ACP are relatively expensive compared to their smaller counterparts, because their manufacture consumes larger quantities of metals, propellants, packaging, etc. (and, being heavier and bulkier, they cost more to ship).
One final point. Big cartridges such as the .45 ACP are relatively expensive compared to their smaller counterparts, because their manufacture consumes larger quantities of metals, propellants, packaging, etc. (and, being heavier and bulkier, they cost more to ship).
That’s one reason why I keep on hand similar handguns chambered for smaller rounds, so that I can train with them at lower cost. For example, a Ruger SR45 can be ‘twinned’ with a Ruger SR9 for training; a Glock 22 with a Glock 17; a Glock 23 with a Glock 19; a Springfield XD-S in .45 ACP with its sibling in 9mm. Parabellum; and so on.
Over time, the savings in ammunition add up; and because the firearms are identical to one another in every important respect, training on the smaller-caliber weapons is directly transferable to their bigger brothers.
All one needs to do is fire the larger cartridge sufficiently to remain familiar with its recoil and trajectory.
Peter
Peter
