Last month, I was at a new product seminar where I attended a ballistic demonstration of new handgun ammunition.  Counting in my head, I realized that it was the seventh such demonstration—bullets fired into ballistic gelatin under controlled conditions and/or performing the FBI protocol tests—I’d attended in the previous 15 months. The companies demonstrating ammo ran the gamut—Winchester, Hornady, Barnes, Black Hills and Federal/CCI/Speer. And I realized, I was bored.

Why? Because without exception, all the ammo I saw tested performed exactly as advertised and expected.

I am not insinuating the tests were rigged, oh no—exactly the opposite. Modern ammunition manufacturing and design has advanced so much that bullet makers are now able to virtually guarantee their hollow points will expand as advertised. Now, while admittedly ballistic gelatin isn’t human flesh, it is a tissue simulator, and bullet results in gel tests can be compared to other results. My point is that technology everywhere—even in bullet design—has improved so much that one of the main arguments for large-caliber handguns (“Even if it doesn’t expand, it started out so big it doesn’t matter.”) has pretty much been eliminated.

With that in mind, I recently sent out an email to my circle of friends, acquaintances, and coworkers, asking what their preferred handgun ammunition was for their carry guns—caliber/brand/bullet weight. For those who couldn’t/didn’t carry, what ammo did they have in the pistol in their bedside table?  Many of the respondents were fellow gun writers, and to be honest, we can get whatever we want because we do so much gun and ammo testing. Considering many of the people I emailed were also combat vets or current or former SWAT cops, I knew they’d make educated choices. My suspicion was that, among this very gun-educated and experienced crowd, I’d find a lot of people now carrying 9mms, something almost unheard of 20 years ago.

I was even more right than I thought I’d be.

The great majority of my group went with the 9mm for their carry or bedside table guns. The rest had both a 9mm as well as a larger caliber gun (.40 or .45) and switched between them. Well, I had one holdout. Guns & Ammo’s Patrick Sweeney chose the .45 ACP, but as to his choice of ammo? “Whatever modern JHP full-weight ammo I have on hand.”

Considering the disgust many “serious pistoleros” felt about the 9mm just a few decades ago, this is a huge shift.

What ammo got the nod?

Hornady’s new 135-grain +P 9mm Critical Duty ammo was the most popular. Shotgun News’ Dave Fortier chose it, as did Dave Bahde, a writer for Harris Publications and former SWAT cop. Jason Teague, who is a SWAT cop by day and gun writer by night, carries it on and off duty.

One of the ballistic tests I witnessed was the 135 +P Critical Duty ammo, and I think it has become popular among those in the know because not only does it expand, it has enough weight to it that it penetrates barriers without too much problem. The inability to reliably penetrate auto glass and sheet metal is why many police departments have moved away from light and ultra-fast 115-grain +P and +P +9mm loads.

The second most popular load in my informal survey was the Winchester Ranger 127-grain +P +9mm loading—actually what I carry every day in my Glock 34. The only thing I don’t like about it is Winchester won’t sell it commercially, only to the law enforcement market, due to the +P+ pressure rating. It has the right combination of bullet weight and velocity for me (1288 FPS out of my long-barreled Glock 34). In 9mm, generally mid-weight bullets (about 124 grains) offer the best balance of sectional density and velocity, which results in both penetration and expansion.

After those top two, I found people were using/carrying a little bit of everything in their 9mms—115-grain Hornady FTX, 124-grain Federal HST (the next-generation Hydra-Shok) and Federal 124-grain +P EFMJ, which is a LE-only load with an expanding full-meal-jacket profile.

For the larger calibers, .40 S&W 180-grain Hornady TAP and 165-grain Federal Guard Dog were noted, as was the Federal .45 200-grain +P EFMJ.

Why choose a 9mm over something larger?  Several simple reasons.

Guns hold more 9mms than they do larger calibers, and the 9mm recoils less than either the .40 or .45. So the guns hold more ammo and recoil less; if modern ammo makes it perform just as well as the larger calibers, why not carry a 9mm?

Yes, I know Elmer Keith was right when he wrote, “Big bullets let in a lot of air and let out a lot of blood.” While bullet technology hasn’t increased at the same pace as, say, cell phone technology, the bullets of today are far different from those of 20 years ago. Bore size no longer equals performance.

The why of these increased sales is a matter of some debate, but whether it is solely or partially due to fears of anti-gun laws, politics is a huge factor. It’s been said that President Barack Obama has been the greatest gun salesman ever, because fears of what he might do based upon comments he has made have driven people to get while the getting is good.

While anti-gun legislation is a non-starter in the current political climate, there are a lot of worries that Obama, if he stays in office, will proceed with anti-gun efforts. Lame duck presidents who don’t have to worry about re-election have always been less constrained to court popular opinion.

Fellow gun writer and SWAT cop Jason Teague recently sent out an email to a group of us like-minded folk wondering what might be on our shopping lists if Obama is re-elected. I found the responses interesting, as they fell into several categories.

A number of people thought of it as an opportunity to make a lot of money, remembering how the prices of just about everything spiked after Clinton’s so-called Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Full-capacity magazine prices skyrocketed, and several in the email exchange pointed out how they had been buying a lot of magazines, not just for personal use, but as an investment. Think about it: Do you remember how much Glock, AK and AR-15 magazines were going for a few years into the ban? AK magazine prices still haven’t normalized.

I had a good friend who was in the DEA, and in the late ’90s he sold all of his commercial Glock magazines for double to triple what he paid for them, then bought all new magazines through his agency for about $10 apiece. His new mags were marked “For Law Enforcement/Military Use Only,” but he didn’t care; he made several hundred dollars.

These same capitalist opportunists friends of mine–and that is not a negative term with me, only a statement of fact–have also been buying a lot of stripped AR-15 lower receivers. If you pay attention, you can find lowers for as low as $59.

The second group of respondents had stockpiling on their minds. They remembered not just how prices skyrocketed, but how both ammunition and reloading components were nowhere to be found. This was due to panic and hoarding as much as anything, but the time to be buying ammunition is not after the EPA has deemed it a dangerous environmental toxin and slapped a 500-percent tax on it. Gun control takes many forms, and backdoor attempts to gut the Second Amendment are nothing new. Even if there isn’t something political that drives up the cost of ammunition, it is not likely to decrease in cost anytime soon, if ever. Why not buy now?

The third group was the most practical: Buy what you’re going to need, just in case it’s not available. Beyond the expected ammunition and magazine buying, they recommended spare parts. Shotgun News’ Dave Fortier replied, “Spare parts for your go-to guns should be considered. Spare firing pins, extractor, ejectors, springs, bolts, gas rings for ARs. Recoil springs for pistols.”

My response to the email? “I have all the ammo (and then some) and guns (and then some) I would ever need. Not to say I don’t want more. Food and water and other consumables are higher on the must-have list, especially since I have kids to feed. If I had the money, what I’d really like is to get a couple of suppressors, now that they’re legal in Michigan. I think having a suppressed gun–or enough to outfit all the males in the family–might be very valuable.”

There is a very good chance that if the president is reelected, he will have a Republican-dominated House and Senate to put the kibosh on any anti-gun legislation he’s in favor of, but that doesn’t mean nothing can happen. Presidents have used Executive Orders to do all sorts of things, both good and (mostly) bad, and our current one is no different. Most people in power do what they can, not what they should; that’s why our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment.

Today, my perspective has… matured. Add the scramble to pay bills that usually accompanies marriage and children, throw another decade of experience in–most of which I spent as a gun writer–and I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a place for every pistol out there, as long as it’s reliable.

In just the past year I’ve tested several pistols from companies I’d never heard of, and without exception they were reliable and ridiculously inexpensive.  In that same time frame, I also tested a customized Remington 870, which cost $1900, and a $3,000 1911, which wasn’t reliable. Sure, both the 1911 and the 870 looked a lot cooler than the Hi-Point or SCCY CPX-2, but the day I buy a gun I know isn’t reliable or spend close to two grand on a pump-action shotgun, you’ll know I suffered a closed-head injury.

With my recent experience, when I was asked to review the TP9 from Canik 55, neither of which I had ever heard of, I said, “Sure, why not?”

Canik 55 is actually a division of Samsun Yurt Savunma, one of Turkey’s biggest defense contractors.  While it probably has some historical significance, their small symbol of a dolphin is not something you often see on a pistol grip.  They actually have a “Dolphin” series of guns, which are CZ-75 clones.  The TP9, on the other hand, looks like a copy of the Walther P99.  While the P99 might have been the inspiration, I actually like magazine release of the TP9 better.  Both guns are a little too busy in looks for my taste, but I know some people just love the modern Walther look.

The TP9 is a polymer-framed 9mm pistol with a 17+1 capacity.  This is a full-size gun with a 4-inch barrel. The action type of the TP9 is a bit unusual. It is a striker-fired gun, but it works a bit like a DA/SA pistol with an exposed hammer. When you first load the pistol and drop the slide, you have the option of leaving it as is. The trigger will stay all the way forward if you don’t touch it, but a light tug on it will reveal no pull weight for the first two-thirds of its travel length, then it will click into place. Pull the trigger then and the result will be a crisp 5-pound trigger pull. Or, you can hit the decocker at the top rear of the slide. When decocked, the trigger stays forward and you will get a long, traditional DA pull of about 10 pounds.

The rear of the striker is painted red, and if you can see it through the hole in the back of the slide, you’ll know it is cocked. The pistol has no external safety.

The polymer frame of the TP9 accommodates interchangeable backstraps, and two sizes–small and large–were provided with the pistol. I have medium-small hands, and the large backstrap put too much bulk on the pistol for my taste, but those of you with larger hands will probably like it a lot.

One of my big pet peeves are gun makers who only supply their semi-auto pistols with one magazine. The TP9 comes with two 17-round magazines with polymer basepads. The magazines are made by Mec-Gar, known worldwide for its quality. Mec-Gar is the OEM magazine supplier for a number of well-known pistols, including the S&W M&P, Ruger SR9, and single-stack Para USA 1911 magazines. While the TP9 looks a lot like the Walther P99, I don’t think their magazines will be interchangeable–I didn’t have one on hand to test–because of the difference in the magazine releases.

The Walther P99 has an ambidextrous lever-type magazine release that runs along the bottom of the trigger guard. The Canik 55 TP9 has a traditional magazine release on the frame behind the rear of the trigger guard. The mag release button is square, metal and aggressively checkered.

The frame has subdued finger grooves on the front, with horizontal serrations to improve gripping on the front and back. The sides of the grip are textured as well. This is a full-size pistol weighing 23 ounces with a grip that fills the hand, chambered in 9mm–aggressive checkering is not needed, as felt recoil isn’t bad at all.

Sights are a 3-dot variety filled with luminous green paint–hit ‘em with bright light and they’ll glow in the dark for a while. The rear sight is adjustable for windage. Both front and rear sights are polymer, and in my opinion, meet the bare minimum requirement, but the pistol shot point of aim. The TP9 also comes with an injection-molded holster that features a locking mechanism very similar to the Blackhawk! Serpa, and both a paddle and belt loop attachment. That’s not a bad deal for a pistol that is selling online for about $350. That’s hundreds of dollars less than you’ll see the Walther going for, but no pistol is a deal if it isn’t reliable.

So how did the TP9 do?  I put several hundred rounds through my sample TP9 and didn’t experience a single malfunction, due no doubt to the well-made magazines feeding into a ramped, fully supported chamber. Accuracy hovered around three inches at 25 yards, which is pretty average for this size/type of gun. In this economy, it’s tough to find the money to buy a new gun, much less afford the ammo you’ll need to feed it, but having a reliable pistol which starts out less expensive than the competition is a good start.

People carry guns “just in case,” but bad things don’t always happen at home. I and a lot of people I know carry guns while on trips, but before you decide if and/or what to bring/carry while on vacation, there are a lot of things to think about. All of those things, however, can be covered by looking at two simple questions:

1. Where are you going?
2. What are you doing?

If you plan to travel to a state or country where transportation or carrying of firearms isn’t allowed, there’s not a whole lot to think about. However, what if you’re traveling through a restrictive area (i.e. Chicago) en route to your final destination? Knowing what the laws are of the states/big cities you pass through is something you need to do.

Also, if you are legally carrying a gun and get pulled over for a traffic violation in a different state, do you know what the state regulations are for declaring that gun to the officer? You should. You should also know local regulations regarding carrying guns in establishments serving alcohol, or in large venues seating in excess of any given number of people.

Carrying a gun on vacation may require you to make some hard decisions. For example, as far as I’m concerned, Disney World would make a very attractive target for an active shooter or a terrorist. As near as I can determine, there is no prohibition in Florida law for someone with a CCW to carry in Disney World. However, Disney is very anti-gun and does not allow concealed carry in their parks, and they do search the bags of people entering the parks, so carrying a gun into Disney World to protect yourself or your family is not against the law, but if spotted, you may be ejected (and those park passes cost a lot of money). Life is full of decisions, some of which are easier than others.

What you plan on doing on your vacation can also affect not just if you can carry, but what. I know someone who was recently at a Six Flags-type amusement part with their kids, and they had to trade in their full-size gun for a small pocket gun because they decided big belt guns and high-speed roller coasters that turn upside down are a bad combination.

Are you going to be spending the majority of your time around a pool or on a beach? If you want to have a gun with you, where are you going to put it when you’re in the water? These are questions you need to think about before you leave the house.

Taking a cruise? Check the regulations of the cruise line.  Even if your boat doesn’t travel to a foreign country, chances are they won’t allow you to bring along a gun. In this post-9/11 world, there’s a good chance both you and your luggage will go through TSA-type screening before you’re allowed on board.

Most vacations involve some sort of hotel stay. If you have your car or a rental car, I would highly recommend not leaving anything of value, including a gun, in that car or in your hotel room when you are not in it.  Guns, computers and other valuables are always with me when I travel, not left in the hotel room during the day or in the car at night. I know too many people whose cars have been broken into while on vacation, and I know someone who had their Kindle stolen from their hotel room by the maid not two weeks ago. Luckily, the Kindle was recovered, but what if he’d left a gun in the room?

Deciding to carry a gun is never a decision to take lightly, and you should always try to plan for the situations you’ll find yourself in, even if that situation is a family vacation.

Back in 1992, I used a borrowed SIG P226 to go through the Oakland Police Academy. I never really cared for it, but I could shoot it. It was accurate, and when not being fed the horrible reloads the academy gave us, completely reliable. But it never seemed to fit my hand right.

Fast-forward about 15 years and I got both versions of the USPSA-edition SIGs to test: the all-steel two-tone version, and the black with silver accents one with the standard aluminum frame. After competing with and carrying 1911s exclusively for over 10 years, I shot (and still shoot) everything with a thumb-high hold. I don’t know if it was that, or just the extra years behind a trigger, but when I put my hands on the SIGs this time, I liked it. They were obnoxiously accurate, of course, but they now felt good in my hand, like SIGs in the past didn’t. SIG has not changed the grip contour, so I suppose the change was in me.

The all-steel SIG was great for competition, but a little heavy for carry. When not carrying my regular Glock, I would carry the aluminum-framed USPSA SIG. The more I spent with it, the more I tweaked it to my personal tastes. I swapped out the polymer recoil spring guide rod for a steel one from Gray Guns. I beveled the tight magazine well, put on thinner aluminum Hogue Extreme grips and changed out the sights with Trijicon HD night sights.

And I now realize that everything I did to “improve” my USPSA edition SIG comes standard on the new SIG P226 Elite Dark, plus a few others.

The Elite series from SIG is easily recognizable by the beavertail on the frame. SIGs sit pretty high in the hand, and I don’t think anyone who doesn’t play for the NBA would have an issue with hammer bite, but that beavertail adds to the looks and coolness factor in the pistol in a way that can’t be measured.

What isn’t just for looks are the forward cocking serrations of the slide. You may not use them, but I and a lot of other people prefer to work the slide from the front, and for that forward cocking serrations are a must. I only wish Glocks came with them.

SIG Elite guns come with checkering on the front of the frame and trigger guard. As soon as I picked up the Elite Dark, I noticed that the checkering seemed more aggressive than on my USPSA edition, and I compared the two. Sometime in the last few years, the engineers at SIG changed the checkering; instead of the (approximately) 30-lpi of the USPSA edition, the Elite Dark has what looks to be 25-lpi checkering on the front strap and trigger guard, and the checkering on the trigger guard covers more area. Full-size 9mm autos don’t have much recoil, and SIGs have less recoil than most, but it’s still nice to be ensured a secure grip even if your hands are sweaty.

The SIG engineers have also apparently redesigned the 226 extractor, because the one on the Elite Dark is about four times the size of what I’m used to seeing on the P226. Bigger extractors are always better.

It is named the “Elite Dark” because it is entirely blacked out, unlike my USPSA SIG, which has hardchromed controls and grip screws. Standard on the model are thin aluminum grips with an aggressive pattern. I prefer thin grips on the 226 because my hands are not big. While SIG does make “enhanced” guns with reduced grip circumference, the profile of those frames tends to move the shooter’s hand even further down on the gun, exactly what you don’t want on a gun that already has a high bore.

The pistol comes equipped with SIGLITE night sights. These consist of a dovetailed front and an MMC-type fully adjustable rear protected by beefy ears. The polymer recoil spring guide rod of the USPSA models has been replaced by a steel model.

The magazine well is slightly beveled, but it is still tighter than I would like. The pistol is supplied with two 15-round magazines. Other than buying more magazines, the only thing I would do to this pistol before carrying it is put in a reduced power hammer spring. The trigger pull on the Elite Dark was good and about as advertised by SIG (10-pound DA/4-pound SA). The single action was nice and crisp. However, SIGs are very oversprung, and a 17-pound hammer spring from Wolff should reduce the DA pull by 2 pounds and the SA pull by at least a pound, all without affecting reliability.

If you are a fan of SIG 226s, or just of full-size 9mms, you should check out the Elite Dark.

SIG SAUER P226R ELITE DARK
Action Type: DA/SA
Caliber: 9mm (.357 SIG and .40 S&W also available)
Capacity: 15+1
Barrel Length: 4.4 inches
Overall Length: 8.2 inches
Height: 5.5 inches
Weight (empty): 34.0 ounces
Sights: SIGLITE nightsights—post front, fully adjustable rear
Accessories: Two 15-round magazines, lockable case
MSRP: $1,218

(Photo courtesy of the USPSA)

A few months ago I was at a local USPSA match, and one of the regulars was shooting his new carry gun.  This was a custom Commander-sized 1911 chambered in 9mm, and it was just a beautiful gun.  It was also a joy to shoot, too, as, even in a slightly reduced size 1911 the 9mm provides almost no recoil. What I noticed most, however, was the trigger pull—I’ve got an educated finger, and estimated it to be right at 2 pounds.

“Isn’t that a little light for a carry trigger?” I asked Rob, the proud new owner.

“Nope,” he replied, and that got me thinking.

Some well-known gun writers have made their bones writing about how no carry gun should EVER have a trigger pull under 4 pounds. I have continually insisted that a trigger pull so heavy it affects your ability to hit the target quickly is not something to be praised. But how light is too light?

Why has 4 pounds become the carry standard? Why not 5, or 4.5 or 4.2379? It is an arbitrary whole number that was chosen because when you start dealing with triggers lighter than 4 pounds in the hands of people who are incapable of keeping their fingers off the trigger, you get negligent discharges.

I, however, don’t think everyone should handicap themselves because some people are idiots. You are either following safe gunhandling rules, or you aren’t. If your training is sorely lacking, and/or you never practice, you are unsafe with any weight trigger pull.

The standard Glock trigger pull (with a 5.5-lb connector) runs around 6-7 pounds, but that was WAY too light for some police departments whose officers were sorely undertrained, and had more than several instances of negligent discharges.  This situation led to the New York and New York Plus Glock triggers.

Instead of improving the training of these officers, the department instead put really heavy triggers in their Glocks. I’ve spent some time behind Glocks burdened with these triggers, and as far as I’m concerned they don’t make the pistols safer. They make the pistols more unsafe. What do I mean by that?

When you put a trigger that heavy in a pistol, you have made it much harder to shoot fast and accurately. You are almost guaranteeing the officers saddled with that atrocity will miss what they shoot at.

But how heavy (or light) should the trigger on a carry gun be for someone who is trained, and knows to keep his or her finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target?  That’s the caveat—training.  Not just knowing to keep the finger off the trigger, but the gun pointed in a safe direction until it’s time to shoot.

I think the answer to this is, it depends. I would carry a 1911 with a 2-pound trigger pull before I would carry a Glock with a 2-pound trigger pull. Why? The 1911 has both a thumb safety and a grip safety. The Glock only has a trigger-mounted safety, and the number of accidental discharges with Glocks because of that are numerous.

Notice I used the term “accidental discharge,” not “negligent discharge.” The second is when you pull the trigger and something happens that you didn’t intend (“I thought it was unloaded,” etc).  These accidental discharges I’m talking about are varied. I know of officers re-holstering their Glocks in thumb-break holsters, and the thumb break strap gets inside the trigger guard. As they push the pistol down, boom. I also know of instances where windbreaker drawstrings have gotten tangled in the triggers of Glocks, causing ADs.

As long as the pistol is mechanically sound, there is no such thing—theoretically—as a trigger pull that is too light.  That said, once a trigger pull gets so light that unintended movement or jarring can set it off, it’s too light. Where is that tipping point? I’m afraid that’s a bit subjective.

When it came to the ideal carry-weight trigger pull on a 1911 in the hands of someone competent, Jeff Cooper himself said, “Three pounds, crisp, is the word.”

Does 3 pounds sound too light? Well, if you don’t trust yourself carrying a pistol “X” weight trigger, you shouldn’t carry it. Cooper’s concern was a pistol that enabled you to survive a gunfight, not the tongue-lashing of a lawyer in a courtroom.

Let me be clear: If you find yourself in a self-defense shooting and hit what you’re aiming at, the weight of your trigger won’t be an issue. If you find yourself in a self-defense shooting and don’t hit what you’re aiming at, all bets are off whether that trigger was light or heavy. Wouldn’t you rather be carrying a gun that has a trigger which doesn’t interfere with your shooting so you can hit what you aim at?

Jeff Cooper is credited with having created the "El Presidente" shooting drill when charged with training the security detail for a South American president. It was Cooper's belief that the drill was not a tactical exercise, but rather one that gauged and developed dexterity.

The universe of handguns owners and shooters is vast, and there is a very good chance that many of you have never heard of “El Presidente”, or if you’ve heard of it…don’t know what it is.  Trust me—you should get to know El Presidente.

The late Jeff Cooper is considered the dean of modern handgunning, and popularized the idea that, “Hey, maybe we should hold onto the gun with two hands.”  He started Gunsite (the American Pistol Institute), which for many years was the preeminent private firearms training facility in the country, if not the world.  Maybe it still is, but I don’t want to get involved in that argument.

Prior to starting Gunsite, Cooper was a Marine who served in the Pacific in World War II.  He saw a little action, and after the war did a little work for the OSS/CIA in the same area.  About fifty years or so ago Cooper was hired to train the bodyguards of the president of a Latin American country.  He developed a shooting drill he named “El Presidente” to not just help train those bodyguards but measure their skill level.

The El Presidente drill requires three silhouette targets set in a line, with three yards between the targets.  The shooter starts ten yards uprange from them, facing AWAY from the targets, his (or her) hands above his shoulders in a “surrender” position.

At the start signal (this is a timed drill), the shooter turns toward the targets, draws his weapon from concealment, and shoots each target twice.  The shooter then performs a reload (spare magazines/speedloaders also concealed) and re-engages each target with two rounds.

While relatively simple, the El Presidente requires every skill you need if you are to be considered competent with a handgun when it comes to self-defense—the draw and a reload, both from concealment, movement (the turn), and engagement of multiple targets.  Cooper considered par on this drill a perfect score in ten seconds, back when most everyone shooting it was using .45 ACP 1911s.

Here's a look at the current USPSA classifier stage diagram of the El Presidente shooting drill. Please click image to enlarge.

The El Presidente is still with us.  It (in slightly modified form) is still used as one of the classifiers used to test skill in the USPSA.  The modern USPSA version has moved the targets closer (only three feet apart instead of three yards) and removed the concealment requirement, but no matter which version you choose to try you’ll still need to master the basics of weapon manipulation.

I was recently at a new product rollout for a MAJOR ammunition manufacturer, and as part of their dog and pony show they had a well know firearms trainer put on a little demo.  Since we were gunwriters, we presumably knew what we were doing, so he wasn’t training us but rather showing us how he did his training.  Like most firearms trainers he has convinced himself his opinions should carry the weight of gospel, and while I did learn a few things from him, I was disappointed and frankly surprised to hear him refer to the El Presidente as irrelevant.

Many trainers don’t like competition shooting (for a number of reasons both right and wrong—but mostly wrong—that I don’t have the space to go into here), but I think this trainer was suffering from an inability to separate his opinion of competition guns and gear from the drill itself.

Even if this trainer was ignorant of the circumstances surrounding Jeff Cooper’s invention of the El Prez half a century ago, one look at the drill, and the skills that are required to master it, should prove its worth.  No drill which helps you practice sight alignment and trigger control is worthless, and the El Presidente does much more than that.  It was designed before there was such a thing as a “race gun”, and, to be honest, will test your gear as much as it does you.  You can shoot it with a tricked-out competition gun, a box-stock Glock, even a revolver.  The last time I shot the El Presidente I was using my carry gun, which at the time was a SIG P226.  While the drill is commonly used with USPSA cardboard silhouette targets, there’s no reason you can’t use any type of target you want if your goal is just to improve your skills.

The only way to become competent at shooting and weapon manipulation is practice, and that practice should include drills (live fire as well as dry fire).  Sure, there are hundreds of drills out there which will help you train and attain and maintain proficiency with a weapon, but the El Presidente was the first modern “combat” drill, and it is still useful and relevant today.

Back in 1993 I started reloading rifle ammunition for precision and handgun ammunition for both economy and to tailor my ammunition to the type of competitions I participated in.  Improved accuracy when compared to factory ammo is generally the goal when loading rifle ammunition, but many shooters also want increased velocity over the factory loadings.  That is often the goal of pistol shooters as well, at least those involved in the action shooting sports where a minimum “power factor” is required (bullet weight X velocity/1000).

For the past 50 years or so ammunition manufacturers have been trying to figure out ways to get more velocity out of handgun cartridges without blowing up guns.  They have developed quicker-burning powders, or powders which have varying pressure curves so that the velocity is increased without danger.

The push for velocity quite often resulted in a lot of flash.  Unburnt powder exiting the barrel only to burn up as “muzzle flash” was quite common.  Once ammunition manufacturers got their bullets traveling at the speed they wanted, they then turned to the powder companies in an attempt to develop low-flash powders.  While powders which inherently have low flash potential have been developed, the simplest way to produce a pistol cartridge which has low flash is to fill it with powder that is completely consumed before the bullet exits the barrel.  With the growing popularity of short-barreled “carry” guns, this was not an easy task.

Over the past year or so I have experimented with a few different pistol powders when handloading;  I have experienced/discovered two separate things which indicate to me that pistol powders are becoming more and more efficient at doing their jobs.  The first has to do with handloading.

When I first started handloading 9mm for competition in about 2005, the most efficient and recommended powder was Vihtavuori N320.  Only 3.6 grains of Vit N320 were needed to propel a 147 grain bullet to the velocity I needed to comfortably make “minor power factor” for USPSA competitions (about 900 fps).  That isn’t much powder at all, but my current loading, which provides the same velocity with the same weight bullet, is 3.3 grains of Hodgdon Titegroup.  That is nearly a 10% reduction in powder charge weight, for the same velocity.  It also lets me load 175+ more rounds out of a pound of powder, saving me money.

The second observation (which actually got me thinking about this earlier this year) occurred while I was testing a number of AR-15-style pistol-caliber (9mm) carbines for an article for Rifle Shooter magazine.  The article should be coming out pretty soon, incidentally.

Traditionally, pistol cartridges fired out of rifle-length barrels provide greatly enhanced velocity, because instead of a percentage of their powder being expended, unburnt, out the end of the short pistol barrel, it gets entirely consumed inside the longer rifle barrel, providing extra oomph.

Back thirty years ago, it wasn’t uncommon to see pistol cartridges, when fired out of 16” barrels, providing an extra 200, 300, even 500 feet per second when compared to velocities out of pistol barrels.  During my chronograph testing for this latest article, however, I couldn’t find one brand of 9mm ammunition which would give me as much as a 200 fps increase over their published pistol-barrel velocities.  This was not a fluke with one gun, it was an observation across the board with every carbine I tested (Colt, Rock River Arms, Lone Wolf, and JR Carbine).  I used Hornady, Black Hills, and Wolf ammunition in testing.  Shooting two different types of 115 grain +P ammunition, the highest velocity I recorded was 1374 fps—that is only 100-150 fps more than what you’d get out of a pistol.

Why so little increase in velocity, especially when compared to results from twenty or thirty years ago?  I believe it is because ammunition/powder manufacturers have been so successful at developing powders specifically for use in short-barrel pistols.  These powders are fast-burning, and are completely consumed after only 4-5 inches of barrel length.  Older powders were less efficient, and the longer barrels gave them the space they needed to reach maximum burn.

Personally I suspect some of these cartridges I tested were loaded with powders which were completely consumed before the bullets were halfway down the 16” barrels, and so the bullets (because of the drag on the rifling) actually started to slow down before exiting the muzzle.  I would have loved to chronograph the same ammunition out of a 10” barrel carbine, to see if some of the velocities were actually higher than out of the 16” barrels, but unfortunately didn’t have that opportunity.

While these results tend to dent one of the main advantages pistol caliber carbines have always had over pistols—a big velocity increase—it means only good things for those of you loading your short-barreled carry guns with modern low flash ammunition.

I attended a local USPSA match this past weekend at one of my local clubs, the Detroit Sportsman’s Congress.  I arrived a little late, and ended up squadded with some people whom I’d never shot before.

There were nine of us on the squad.  I knew Chris, the FBI agent, and Arlan, the recently retired UPS driver, but everybody else was a stranger.  I wasn’t sure if they were new shooters to the sport or not, but I like to think of every shooting match as an opportunity to have fun, so I was looking forward to shooting with some new people.

Three of the shooters I didn’t know seemed to know each other.  The men were all of recent retiree age, and not bad shots.  I noticed that one of them was shooting an old Browning Hi-Power, possibly an Inglis.  It had a round hammer and an adjustable rear sight—not the kind of pistol you see often, especially at an IPSC match.

Conversation revealed that the three older gentlemen were all Vietnam veterans.  The owner of the Hi-Power had been a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, and flown all sorts of missions in Vietnam and Cambodia.  He’d even been shot down a time or two.  I also learned that the Browning Hi-Power was the pistol he’d carried while flying those helicopters.

If there is one thing to bind a gun to a man’s heart, it’s carrying it in combat.  I commented that he probably wouldn’t sell that gun, ever, for any amount of money.  It could be considered a family heirloom.  This made me think about my own collection of guns.  Did I own a pistol that I just would not sell for any amount of money?

My father didn’t pass down any guns to me, and I haven’t carried any of the pistols I own in combat.  I have had to point pistols at a few people over the years, but I never had to pull the trigger, and ironically I don’t own any of those guns anymore.  So which gun is nearest and dearest to my heart?

It was easy to narrow it down to two choices.  The first pistol I thought of was my Springfield Armory .45.  I bought it used sometime in the mid-nineties for $350.  I bought a used pistol because I planned to have a lot of work done on it, and figured the extra money for a new gun would just be wasted.

This wouldn’t be the first 1911 I’d owned, but it was the first one I was having customized where I really knew exactly what I wanted.  My local gunsmith, Russ Carniak, was really good, having first learned the trade behind the front lines in Korea, getting damaged guns back into service.  I gave Russ the gun, and about $1000, and what he produced was a 1911 that never jammed on me (except because of bad ammo or a bad magazine).

Russ checkered the front strap by hand, and cut off the rounded trigger guard to weld back on a square one, the front of which he checkered also.  He tightened it up, but not so tight that it had to be broken in, because he knew I was going to carry it.  I picked the parts for him to put on it—the thumb safety is a King’s which I filed down to the size and shape that I wanted, and he installed it.  He contoured the frame to fit the Ed Brown beavertail, which I then adjusted so that it stuck out as far as possible and required only a slight amount of movement to disengage, as I have issues deactivating most grip safeties due to thin hands.

I carried that Springfield every day for five years or so, and made Master Class in USPSA with it.  It has needed refinishing for years, because it was simply blued, and I carried it in a Kramer horsehide holster.  If you look closely at the picture you can see the bluing worn off on the front strap checkering in the shape of fingers, that’s how much I carried and shot it.  The tritium insert in the front sight is so old that it doesn’t glow enough to be visible to the naked eye.  Currently it has fancy G10 grips on it and a TechWell magwell, but for most of its life it wore traditional cocobolo wood grips and a bolt-on Wilson magwell.

Russ Carniak, “The Accurizer”, passed away about ten years ago, making this pistol something that can never be duplicated.  I love my Springfield, and trusted my life to it, but the fact is that I haven’t carried it for years.  For the last 6 years I’ve been carrying a Glock 34.

Even though they are ugly, simple, and inelegant, I can shoot Glocks better than I ever could 1911s.  I shoot a Glock 34 9mm in competition, and carry one every day.  Currently I only own one, and would never sell it, just because I shoot it so well and trust it completely.  Even though my Glock has been lightly customized (trigger job, aftermarket sights, steel recoil spring guide rod and reduced power recoil spring), there is nothing special about it.  In fact, it is rather battered.  A customized Glock to me is nothing like a custom 1911, and I have a lot more nostalgia and emotion invested in my Springfield than I do my Glock. If I had a second Glock set up right I would have no qualms selling the one I have.  I love the design, but not this specific handgun.

So I guess my Springfield Armory .45, even though I haven’t carried it in years, is the pistol that I just wouldn’t sell.  I know I’m not the only gunowner who has such a piece.

Do you have a handgun that you just wouldn’t sell, for any amount of money?

I was asked to give my opinion on this, because my editor predicted, “The left will blame guns, and the right will blame violent movies and video games…crazy trumps it all.”

My perspective on this crime will not be popular with some:  There’s nothing that could have been done to prevent it.

In modern America we always want to second-guess everything, and throw blame around like confetti.  We also seem to have this crazy idea that certain circumstances could have been prevented, “if only….”—but that is both immature and irrational.  Let me repeat—there’s nothing that could have been done to prevent it, and the only person to blame is James Holmes.

CNN’s Piers Morgan has already called for more gun control. That’s great…I’d been worried he was out of ideas on how to lower his ratings even more.  And I’m glad to see he’s breaking new ground; how often do Brits call for gun control? Morgan works for CNN, a network that has lost most of its audience over the last fifteen years, specifically because of its unrelenting left-wing bias.

James Holmes, the perpetrator, reportedly had no criminal record other than a traffic ticket, and no history of mental illness.  There would be no legal way to prevent him from owning a gun except an outright ban on privately owned guns.

Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes posted this image on AdultfriendFinder.com July 5, 2012. Reportedly he used the phrase "Will you visit me in prison" in his profile. Image courtesy of AdultfriendFinder.com.

Let’s, for a second, assume that guns are the problem, and banning them would have prevented this.  Gee, where do I start?  First, the ban would have had to go into effect decades ago to get all the guns off the street, and guess what—you’ll never get all the guns out of the hands of private citizens in this country, not even if you enacted a total ban and sent the cops/military door to door.  Personally, I think we’re in the middle of a cultural civil war, and attempting to forcibly confiscate everybody’s guns would kick-start this cultural cold war into a shooting war, but that’s another blog.

Second, the gun banners seem to think that once all guns are banned, people would behave.  I’m a little fuzzy on my history there—is it true that no human was ever murdered by another human until the invention of gunpowder?

If there were no guns available to him and he still decided to go on a killing spree, he could have used a knife, a baseball bat, a can of Progresso soup…..my point is that you can’t legislate against crazy, or homicidal.  We are all assuming this guy was crazy, but you know what happens when you assume.  Maybe he’s perfectly sane and rational, but believes the world is drastically overpopulated….I don’t know, and neither do you.

Sane people occasionally go nuts.  Some get better afterward, some don’t.  If you propose that we prevent anyone from ever owning a weapon, just in case they go nuts, for our own protection, George Orwell would like a few words with you.

Should we blame violent movies or video games for desensitizing our youth?  No.  Stop blaming objects or things.  People are responsible for their own actions.  I like violent movies and video games, and I’ve never felt the urge to go on a murderous rampage, much less actually done it.  Some people are crazy and homicidal, and some of the crazy homicidal people may like to watch action movies or play First Person Shooter video games.  There may be overlap, but there is no cause and effect.

What’s the premise of Batman itself?  A vigilante who takes care of criminals, because the cops can’t be everywhere.  Wait, what?  The cops can’t be everywhere?  That’s not what the news media tells me.

Sarcasm aside, I can’t think of any rational idea which, when implemented, would have prevented James Holmes from going into that theater and shooting people.  More laws?  I think the “don’t murder people” law is pretty clear, and he had no problems breaking that, so any lesser laws against carrying concealed weapons or whatever would be moot.  The only thing I can think of which would have cut short his rampage was if one or four of the moviegoers were armed and started shooting back.  People, however, would still be dead.

The media will bombard us with calls for gun control, and endless odysseys into the shooter’s childhood and the “why” of this event.  The why does not matter. The fact of the matter is that this is a senseless act of violence, that could not have been prevented, and the only thing or person to blame is James Holmes.  Mourn the dead, because the loss of even one person is a tragedy.