It used to be called “plinking” but now it’s often referred to as informal target shooting. Whatever you care to call it, shooting at small targets that react and move is a lot of fun.

Plinking became less common over the past few decades because of the loss of unstructured shooting facilities and problems with leftover shot up targets. While it’s a lot more fun to shoot at targets that move when they’re hit, it sometimes left a mess that didn’t get cleaned up. The hazard posed by ricochets from targets placed directly on the ground became a problem too.

Full article on Examiner.com

Until 2010, visitors to national parks were required to leave their firearms at home. In 2010, that rule changed and visitors now are allowed to follow local, state, and federal law with regard to possession of firearms in national parks. The National Park Service has issued a news release about the change.

Full article on Examiner.com

Cherokee Gun Club in Gainesville, Georgia held its monthly International Defensive Pistol Association match on Sunday. This was the Club’s annual ‘revolver friendly’ match. There were 66 competitors, including 5 lady shooters.

Full article on Examiner.com

Hard-to-see sights on a snub-nose revolver are a common complaint. One of the main reasons people don’t use the sights is because they can’t see them. The sighting system has two components, front sight and rear sight. Both can be improved on, in many cases with just a few minutes’ work and very little cost.

Full article on Personal Defense Network

My 5^5 drill in Concealed Carry Magazine

 The inspiration for this drill came from Gila Hayes’ excellent book, Effective Defense.

She described a standard to determine if a particular gun was suitable for a given individual. Gila’s standard is to put 5 shots in 5 inches at 5 yards in 5 seconds. For most people, I think this is a good balance between shooting accurately and shooting quickly. To make sure that the shooter can do it consistently, I add 5 times in a row or 5^5 for short.

Vision and Shooting

A conversation I had with a private client about vision and shooting.

"With regard to your vision, don't get me started on the optometric community. Your current setup (bifocal contacts with the dominant eye set far in the center) is extremely unlikely to be useful for shooting at high speed. However, that is the way they set people up in general. Thank god you haven't had Lasik; I have had several students who were doomed for shooting by the way they were done.

Your right eye needs to be able to focus on the front sight. My suggestion is that you talk to your optometrist about getting a set of monovision contacts. They can give you a trial set so it's not expensive. The way this needs to be set up is to have the dominant eye focus close and the non-dominant eye focus at infinity. You may get resistance from the optometrist for this setup, if they won't accommodate you, find another optometrist who will.

Not everyone can tolerate this arrangement but the majority of people (about 66%) can. It may take a few days to get used to it and you may only be able to [use] it initially for a few hours at a time. Ultimately, this is the best setup for shooters who have experienced 'age related vision changes', as you so nicely put it. I wear this arrangement all the time, as do a number of other shooters I know.

The distance for the dominant eye is the distance from your eye to the front sight when the pistol is held with two hands and head erect. In my case, it is 22 inches but yours may be different. It's best to actually have a friend measure this with a yardstick. I brought my inert orange gun to the optometrist and had him measure it but he is a casual shooter and it didn't freak him out.

I also have my glasses set up this way. Talk about a BJJ match with the optometrists over that one. They will tell you it doesn't work at all but that is absolutely untrue. The percentage of people who can tolerate it is much lower than with contacts due to the different focal lengths but some people can tolerate it. I know a number of older shooters use it regularly or exclusively."

More on Dealing with Undesirables

Interesting, but this is not a military situation, so I am not sure that "atrrit [sic] the enemy at the maximum effective range of your weapons" works for bums. As for involving "weapons (guns or knives) access," I think you are asking for legal trouble if this is done merely because a panhandler approaches asking for money. Your gun is not for keeping bums at 12 feet. If he keeps coming, are you going to shoot him?

One of the things I teach in my more advanced classes is that posture, voice, and non-verbal communication are primary weapons in dealing with others. Students have to go through a repetitive role play with me.

Me (bum): Can I ask you a question?
Them: NO!
Me (bum) But I just want to ask you a question.
Them: NO!
Me (bum): I just wanted to ask you a question. (dejectedly)
Them: NO! STOP! DON'T COME ANY CLOSER!
Me (bum): You're no fun. (walk away and wait for next pigeon)

While this is going on, I am slowing incrementing (getting a little closer). They are supposed to back away and maintain their flight initiation distance (The distance at which an animal will flee from an approaching predator) as the interaction is going on. I don't want their feet glued to the ground.

It's surprising how difficult this simple exercise is for many people. When I was at Deloitte, the firm sponsored a self-defense class that had both hands-on and role play components. Sixteen people took the class. For one of the role plays, the instructor clearly laid out the boundary at which we were to say "STOP! DON'T COME ANY CLOSER!" I was the only person in the class who was able to do it initially. A number of people required several iterations before they were able to say it at all. Deloitte employees are universally nice people who are used to being in the collegial atmosphere the firm fosters. It's hard for people like that to transition to effective boundary setting when dealing undesirables. It requires practice and regular reinforcement.

I personally also include "ALTO. NO ME ACERCA MAS!" (Spanish for SDCAC) in my repertoire because of the large Spanish speaking populations I have encountered but don't require it of my students.

The incidents involving weapons were clearly not just bums asking for money. They and I both knew it and we began the interaction accordingly.

There are two key boundaries, as opposed to zones, in proxemics that are relevant to self-defense. The first is 'flight initiation distance', the second is 'critical distance'. The term 'critical distance' was initially presented by Dr. H. Hediger in his book The Psychology and Behaviour of Animals in Zoos and Circuses as the distance at which a pursued animal will turn and initiate a counterattack on the pursuer. Dr. Hediger posited that both 'flight (initiation) distance' and 'critical distance' have very specific quantitative aspects that are species unique. Dr. Hall, the founder of proxemics, felt that flight and critical distance were no longer present in the human species but I believe this is incorrect.

In self-defense, the key to avoiding necessary physical violence by the chosen victim is to keep the predator beyond critical distance. My interpretation of critical distance for North American urban humans is that it usually occurs somewhere within the near phase of social space (4-7 feet) as defined by Dr. Hall. This is not to say that it cannot be triggered at further distances by events such as receiving gunfire or making violent and tumultuous entry of one's dwelling.

The best way to keep the predator beyond critical distance is to begin communicating at our flight distance, which I interpret as the far edge of social space (12 feet). That's the point where we begin using our verbal and non-verbal weapons so as to get de-selected by the predator. I.e., we are using non-physical weapons to attrit the victim selection process and get the predator to move on to someone else. It's somewhat akin to the joke about two people being chased by a bear, one of whom says: "I don't have to run faster than the bear, just faster than you."