Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by Good Ol' Boy, Oct 12, 2019.
My $25 Caldwell's serve their purpose for ME just fine, but "super hearing" they ain't.
Aaaaaaaahhhh ... now I understand, Thanks!
So it more of a cheap (or, perhaps more accurately, minimal-acuity) electronics muffs issue rather than an electronic muffs issue.
In short, the video in Post #1 is the creation of an "armchair general" with little - if any - practical experience about what he is pontificating about.
You don't need a suppressor to survive a close encounter in your home.
I have done so without a suppressor..
You don't need a suppressor to preserve your hearing after a close encounter in your home.
I have done so. My hearing loss is attributable to a single session with a 22 rim fire revolver.
I suppose that depends what you mean. As far as I know, John has not had to deal with an invasion of his home, so if that's what you meant then yes, you are correct. That would apply to the vast majority of professional trainers, cops, gun people in general and people on this forum. He does, however, have extensive experience fighting with and without suppressors in combat, so if that's what you meant, you're dead wrong and should have spent 2 minutes researching before making an ignorant comment.
I have about six sets of Peltor Active Hearing protectors around. All bought on sale at different times from Midway USA. I think they're great and the enhanced audible acuity would come in handy should one have to conduct a search or actually fire in a self-defense situation. I have a pair of Sordins too that work well but I had to send them in once to be repaired which has not occurred with the Peltors.
John is spot on about many subjects he discusses in his video, but I disagree with his opinion about the use of suppressors for house defense. I don't think the "shock and awe" of an unsuppressed muzzle report is much of an advantage. I'm not of the opinion that one must use a suppressor for house defense. One should weigh the pros an cons and choose what's best for one's situation.
I know John Lovell is an expert in fighting in structures, and I don't own a can. If I did have one though I'd use it on my HD gun. I think it's an even bigger advantage for someone that lacks his experience with gunfighting in buildings.
I have always thought that the Maxim 9 is an ideal home defense weapon for those wanting a suppressed option for a handgun. Easy to secure next to the bed and in the short configuration it's only 1" longer than a 1911.
There's no doubt of John Lovell's cred, but I often disagree with him, and so post in the comments of his vids. In the recent one about pistol braces,
I called him out about his comment at 1:53 . (I use the same avatar (my .223 target) on you tube, if you care to read it.) His assessment of the various braces was dead on.
While re-watching it after this post, I also noticed he didn't research the SBa4 well. He complains about the QD placement, and that it's only on the right. It in fact has ambi QD holes, which is evident in the above still from the video. (it's on the closest AR to the front.)
I don't own any cans, but I probably wouldn't use them for an HD gun if I did, for the same reason FL-NC mentioned. I wouldn't want to lose them for a long time (probably forever) nor have to deal with that as a part of a legal defense if necessary.
I thought that when I first saw them. Is there a way to mount a WML on it?
As a Vietnam era 11B Vet, in my ears are a set of free from the VA hearing aids. All things considered, they weren't really free.
Without them, my hearing is very poor so as GBExpat said I have a set of Peltors. OTOH from what I've read about home invasions, I can't speculate if I'll have the time to put them on.
My primary HD weapons are a Remington RP45 and a 10.5" 5.56 AR. The wife's is a Remington RP9. I have a 92FS in the shop as well. All are equipped with cans.
There's a really, really big difference between self defense in public places and defending against a home invader.
For one, the legal threshold for use of force is much lower where a home invader is concerned; in most places, it's basically justifiable to use any amount of force against an invader simply on the grounds that they are an invader. An example is the applicable statute in my state:
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Self defense in public? There's a use of force continuum, and if you use more than you are justified in, you will face charges. Here again are the relevant statutes in my state as an example:
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
Now that we've established the very different circumstances which would determine if a person could even face any charges, let's talk about the practical side.
-The odds of ever needing to use deadly force to defend yourself are pretty low, low enough that most of us who do carry, carry something that is minimally obtrusive to our daily lives. Subcompact and micro pistols with very limited capacities that can be difficult to shoot well are extremely common for that reason. People who carry more substantial armament, especially multipe guns and magazines, could easily be painted as having been looking for a fight. Likewise, the mass and bulk of a suppressor far outweigh it's advantages for ordinary concealed carry, or even law enforcement officers who are not SWAT/HRT/etc.
-Home defense is a whole different ballgame where the odds of needing and practicality of carrying more substantial arms are completely irrelevant to what's used. I'm sure there are people who do use micro and subcompact pistols for HD, but the majority of us use full sized handguns if not rifles and shotguns, the latter two of which fall into the same category as suppressors for concealed carry purposes but make sense in home defense for reasons I needn't get into in this thread. Not only are suppressors not a hindrance on a weapon that needn't be carried on the body concealed, but they have a very legitimate & easily justified/explained purpose in protecting the hearing and preserving the night vision of the defender and other dwelling occupants.
Yes, it has KeyMod under the suppressor and you can also mount a red dot on top of the gun. They sell a rail to attach to the KeyMod for $25.
Thanks for the info. Now I REALLY want one.
Every gun that I would grab for defense in my home is suppressed.
The video overlooks the #1 reason not to use a suppressor (or any NFA item, for that matter) for HD: any such use would look very bad to a jury that may be deciding your fate after the event. A prosecutor could easily say that you were overgunned, and spoiling for a fight. And a jury would probably agree with him.
How would the use of a legally possessed tool change the facts of case? There have been plenty of cases where a convicted felon used a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to have in self defense and wasn’t charged with murder.
Even an illegal suppressor or machine gun used in self defense doesn’t make the act of self defense illegal. The felon may be charged with possession of a firearm by a felon but not with murder if the actual act of self defense was within the law.
I’m not aware of any law on the use of force in self defense that says you’re only allowed to use a legal or otherwise approved weapon to defend yourself with. I am aware of self defense shootings that occurred when someone was protecting his drug stash that weren’t charged because the act of self defense was within the law even though he was protecting his illegal drugs.
If the act of self defense is legal, the tool used is immaterial.
Even if the circumstances were questionable, i.e. the shooting came out of an argument that escalated, the weapon used wouldn’t be an issue. Perhaps if you shot the “attacker” in the back of his head in his own home the use of a suppressed weapon might figure into your claim that the shooting was in self defense, but I really can’t see it mattering one way or the other in other circumstances.
I would not put anything above a scum DA out for a convict or an attorney suing in a civil case. I am hoping using a suppressor does not start a landmark case that looks into the NFA and those regulations. Suppressors need to be easier, not harder than they already are.
The scum DA would have to change the facts of the case and go against all of the precedents that have established that the tool used in legal self defense is not material to the act.
Yes but there have been challenges used in other DGU cases. Handloaded ammo, "cool guy" modifications to a weapon, lightened trigger pull etc. I specifically remember in the Zimmerman case, he was criticized for not having a safety on his Kel-Tec P-11. Which did not go very far in the proceedings but was still mentioned. I can see the angle of where a suppressor would be attacked in a court room. It would not stop me from using one however.
I like the look of that Maxim 9, I would like to try it one day!
That video was very interesting for me as I'm planning to buy an AR pistol in the near future. When I was shooting the Saint one at the range another customer told me I would be better off with an adjustable brace. (I'm a fraction of an inch over 5' with arms proportional.) He let me try his full-length AR that had an adjustable stock and it was nice, but for the rest of my session I continued using the Saint with the non-adjustable one and after modifying my stance as he suggested it seemed OK to me, however being that I have no experience with other than handguns I guess that might not mean much. He relayed the whole conversation to one of the clerks who when I came out to check out showed me that they sell an adjustable one which he described as "exactly like the one the Saint comes with, but adjustable" and implied that if I buy the gun from them they would change out the brace it comes with for the the adjustable one at no extra charge. I took a photo of the box, which I just retrieved:
Now I'm confused, I think in the video the one he said was adjustable was SBPDW, and the SBA3 was one of the ones he described at the end.
Since you mentioned you are familiar with all the braces, can you tell me whether the SBA3 is also adjustable???
Regarding a suppressor, my house takes an absolute minimum of 58 seconds to break into (probably considerably longer in real life), assuming the electronic muffs alone (i.e. without squishy plugs underneath) are tolerable (which I plan to try next time at the range), when I get my AR I will practice putting on the electronic muffs when grabbing it. A regular suppressor is heavy and unbalances the weapon. Also I suspect I'm going to need an actual scope which is already going to add weight because so far I can't use the red dot with both eyes open (although I'm deferring final decision based on what ophthalmologist says), and the lightweight suppressor everybody recommends costs more than twice as much as the pistol.
Shooting suppressed has a bunch of benefits, especially to do with hearing protection.
If that's how you fire the gun at the range and that's the configuration you use to practice with the gun (taking into account optics, sights etc) then I can't see what the problem would be if the gun was used in that same configuration for self defence. I can't see any malice attached to it, in a defensive scenario.
Given the huge misperception among the public that a suppressor actually SILENCES the weapon, the defense attorney would have to bring some statistics and hopefully video with sound, to disabuse the jury of such an idea.
Yes, the SBa3 is adjustable. I'm going out to the range today for Veteran's Day to zero my BUS (back up sight) set. I'll get a few pics and post them here later today.
Separate names with a comma.