Category: Fieldcraft
Prioritizing four mandatory traits of a concealed carry handgun.
There are hundreds of pistols marketed as being suitable for concealed carry. Choosing one that might be the best option for you can seem daunting, but there’s a method you can employ that is very practical. It involves prioritizing the most important aspects of a concealed carry pistol, which include—in order of importance—carry and concealability, reliability, shootability and effectiveness.
This hierarchy might surprise many who believe effectiveness/ballistics should be most important, so let’s look at each aspect individually and some rules I think should apply.
Ease of Carry & Concealability
If you have a pistol for concealed carry that you find uncomfortable to carry or hard to conceal, you simply will not carry it—no matter how effective it might be. As they say, the first rule of participation in a gun fight is to have a gun.
For example, few would argue the effectiveness of a 10mm pistol, such as the 6-inch barreled Kodiak from Dan Wesson. After all, it can launch a 180-grain bullet to almost 1,300 fps with double the kinetic energy of the 9mm Luger. But it also weighs more than 50 ounces when fully loaded and is almost 10 inches long.
Rule 1: Find the size of pistol you can comfortably carry and easily conceal. Then, assemble your options accordingly.
Reliability
If you are required to shoot your concealed carry pistol to try to keep from becoming un-alive or seriously injured, it must work. It must work for the first shot, the second shot, and every shot thereafter. (I once responded to a shootout behind a bar early one morning and on the ground beside the dead guy was a pistol with a stove-pipe jam.)
Fortunately, most modern pistols from reputable manufacturers are very reliable, but you might discover that you do not interface with a certain pistol very well and that lack of a smooth interface can cause stoppages. You might also find out a specific pistol—no matter how trusted the model—has reliability issues.
Rule 2: Settle for no less than 100 percent reliability from your carry gun when shooting self-defense ammunition.
Shootability
You need to be able to hit what you’re shooting at. Yes, just pointing a pistol at, or shooting at, a bad guy might be enough to make them stop doing bad things. But if that does not work, you’re going to need the bullets you launch to find their mark. You might interface wonderfully well with a specific pistol, and it might never malfunction, but if you cannot hit what you’re shooting at—and you know you can shoot better—it’s not the pistol for you.
What you’re looking for is a pistol you can shoot fast and accurately, but it’s hard to give a performance threshold when it comes to shootability, because of the different skill levels of shooters. Consider using a common defensive handgun drill—something like the Forty-Five Drill—to evaluate your abilities with any handgun you’re considering carrying.
Rule 3: If, from 5 yards, you cannot put five shots into a 5-inch circle in 5 seconds with your chosen pistol, it might very well be the wrong handgun for you.
Effectiveness
This is the aspect of defensive handguns that often causes the most worry or disagreements, and it deals with the cartridge more than the pistol. Although, the pistol matters, too, because a particular cartridge might generate a recoil impulse that makes the pistol unshootable for you. The most carried self-defense pistol cartridges are the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W and .45 Auto. Less popular are smaller pistol cartridges like the .22 LR, the .25, .32 and .380 Auto, and the semi-recently introduced .30 Super Carry.
In attempting to answer the question of which cartridge is the most effective, the answer is really very simple: It’s the cartridge that’s capable of delivering the largest caliber bullet at the fastest velocity. However, between the three most popular cartridges, and even the .30 Super Carry, the distance between their effectiveness is not as broad as you might think. Given good shot placement, they will all work about the same.
Rule 4: Choose the largest caliber cartridge with the fastest velocity that you can comfortably manage and shoot well, in a pistol that you can carry and conceal reasonably easy.
Starting Your Search
When all these considerations are looked at in totality, the little itty-bitty guns are often avoided because they’re either hard to shoot or because they do not offer optimum effectiveness. Conversely, the big pistols are rarely chosen because they’re very hard to comfortably carry and conceal.
Today, handgun weight is a great classifying metric and the compact handguns—weighing between 24 and 32 ounces—in 9mm Luger have become the most popular. This is because for most people they offer the best balance of carry ease, shootability and effectiveness with 100 percent reliability.
This classification of pistols is where I would suggest most start their search. You might find that a compact pistol in 9mm Luger recoils a bit much for your shooting comfort. Your option then is to step up to a full-size pistol or drop down to a lesser cartridge. If you find a compact 9mm soft shooting, you could opt for a more powerful cartridge that might be more effective or for a sub-compact pistol that could be easier to carry and conceal.
Most shooters trade or upgrade their carry gun in the first few years because they’re either looking for something that fits them better or because they want a better quality or more powerful pistol. There’s nothing wrong with that.
As you learn and become a better shooter, you might go through multiple pistols before you find the one that’s just right for you. However, if you’re just beginning your search or are unhappy with your first purchase, consider these four aspects of a carry pistol and maybe try a compact 9mm, at least as a point of departure.
Categories
“Requiem for an Unsung Hero”
*Last week I was talking to my old friend Andy Stanford on the phone. For those of you new to the shooting game, Andy was a pioneering instructor in the 1990s and 2000s. He focused a lot of his classes on handgun skills and operating in a low light environment.
Back in the days before the internet was popular, Andy was well known in the field because he wrote books about subjects that most of us were trying to master. I still have the original first edition copies of Andy’s books from the now-defunct Paladin Press.
Andy’s most notable book was Fight at Night, the first book ever written about low light operations. His book Surgical Speed Shooting was also quite innovative for the time. 
In our conversation, I mentioned that I was planning on attending an upcoming private training class taught by Larry Mudgett. Larry spent 35 years with LAPD, During his tenure there, he radically improved the police department’s (and the SWAT Team’s) firearms training.
He, somewhat like Andy, did the majority of his fine work in the days before YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. That means most Gun Culture 2.0 folks have no idea those guys even exist.
I’ve always found Andy to be both superbly intelligent and intellectually curious. He’s a bit of a contradiction in the knuckle-dragging world of atavistic firearms instructors. If you don’t know anything about him, I think this short article Andy Stanford: Former shooting instructor hits the high notes in the Ridgecrest, California Daily Independent characterizes a lot of his personality.
In our phone conversation, Andy told me about one of his friends whose accomplishments at Bakersfield, California PD rivaled those of Mr. Mudgett. In fact, Andy’s friend was once Larry Mudgett’s instructor. Unfortunately, this man, Mike Waidelich, passed away a few years ago.
I did some research on him and found that he and I would probably have gotten along quite well. He was a student and friend of Jeff Cooper, serving as Range Master at Gunsite Academy.
In one of Cooper’s monthly Commentaries from 1995, he mentioned Mike in the following entry.
“Family member and Orange range master Mike Waidelich has now become a firm advocate of the Glock pistol. This has puzzled me because I consider that trigger action is the most significant single element in the precision efficiency of any firearm, and the trigger on the Glock is customarily so bad as to be practically unworkable.
But Mike does not agree. He explained to me that pistol engagements within the law enforcement establishment customarily occur at such short range that precise bullet placement is not important. He maintains that he can teach anybody to center a human adversary with the Glock trigger at any reasonable range – say 10 meters or less.
The other points that recommend the Glock to the police establishment are low cost and readily available modular parts. The Glock people will furnish you with spare parts immediately, where most other manufacturers hem and haw. These points are important. They are not enough to turn me into a Glockenspieler; but then, I am not a police range master.”
An appreciation for Glocks in the Gunsite world back in 1995 was considered heresy. I decided I liked Mike’s style. I liked it even more when I read his letter to the editor published by The Bakersfield Californian titled Don’t leave home without one back in 2012.
“In response to the May 2 letter “Consequences of NRA’s assault on gun laws”: I was a police officer for 30 years. I was assaulted several times during that time and had contact with many assault victims. All manner of weapons, knives, clubs, guns, and a bunch of other things were used.
I have been retired for about 14 years now and I still never leave the house without a gun. When you can assure me that I will never be attacked by anyone, armed or otherwise, I’ll leave my gun at home. Until then, you should hope that I, or someone like me, is around if you are ever the victim of an assault.
I hate violence. I hate it so much that I am willing to kill if necessary, to keep anyone from using it against me.”
Mike Waidelich
I fear that history may forget the genre-changing accomplishments that men like Andy Stanford and Mike Waidelich contributed. Andy wrote an obituary of sorts documenting Mike’s achievements. I am publishing it below with Andy’s permission to keep Mike’s ideas alive for eternity.
I think if modern day officers shot the same 10-round course Mike developed twice a month, our police hit rates would change in a dramatically favorable manner. We’ve known how to solve the problem of cops who can’t shoot for almost 50 years now. The problem is that most modern police firearms instructors don’t take enough interest in their craft to study the methods used by past innovators.
I hope Andy’s article provides you all with a little perspective and historical context that you might not have otherwise been exposed to. Enjoy. Thanks to Andy for allowing me to reprint his work.
-Greg
R.I.P. Mike Waidelich
Requiem for an Unsung Hero
Lyle Wyatt just called me with “bad tidings”: Mike Waidelich died today. I first met Mike in 1977 through the South West Pistol League, where he had won the B-class Championship the year before.
The last time I saw him was probably in the early 1990’s at the Soldier of Fortune 3-gun Match, where Waidelich was a longtime staff member. He had Hollywood good looks, and Lyle confirms my impression that Mike was a genuinely nice guy.
R.I.P. Mike Waidelich
Requiem for an Unsung Hero
Lyle Wyatt just called me with “bad tidings”: Mike Waidelich died today. I first met Mike in 1977 through the South West Pistol League, where he had won the B-class Championship the year before. The last time I saw him was probably in the early 1990’s at the Soldier of Fortune 3-gun Match, where Waidelich was a longtime staff member. He had Hollywood good looks, and Lyle confirms my impression that Mike was a genuinely nice guy.
Mike was born in 1942, and served in the U.S. Army Special Forces (he fought in the Dominican Republic in ’65, if I recall correctly). One of the first Gunsite instructors, Mike taught during the API 250 class attended by LAPD SWAT icons Larry Mudgett and John Helms. But his biggest claim to fame was the too-little-known story of his success as the Bakersfield P.D. Rangemaster. By some miracle, I spoke with him several times in the last month or so, and got the details.
Mike joined the BPD in 1967 when it was an agency of 50-ish sworn personnel (now several hundred). At that time patrol cops carried .38 revolvers in clamshell holsters. A year or so later they had eight on-duty shootings with zero police bullets hitting the suspects. The Chief asked Mike if he could solve this problem. Mike said “yes” but only if he could do it his way. A couple of hours explaining the particulars of “his way” and the job was his, 12 years total.
Pretty quickly the switch was made to 9mm Smith and Wesson Model 59 autopistols, and later, in the 1980s, to the 1911A1 Colt 45’s that Mike initially recommended (in Milt Sparks leather no less). Then, approximately ten years after that, the department switched again, to Glocks, first in .40 S&W, now 9mm. But the hardware is not generally the most important factor in a gunfight. It’s usually “the nut behind the bolt,” and that is where Mike made his bones.
In-service transition training was five days long. So was academy firearms training for recruits. Paul Trent, Mike’s friend and protege, relates: “When I went to the Gunsite 250 course in 1980, I got an Expert ticket. I realized Mike had taught my 1976 academy class virtually the same material, plus some additional tactics.” Trent attended the BPD academy a year before Waidelich actually met Jeff Cooper, and prevailed in an on-duty gunfight his first day on the job.
The standard BPD course of fire (with Mike’s rationale) was as follows, all from the holster:
2 rounds in 1.5 seconds at 10 feet (“No one should be closer than that.”)
2 rounds in 2.0 seconds at 20 feet (“The length of a car.”)
2 reload 2 in 6.0 seconds (8.0 for revolvers) at 30 feet (“From the curb to the front door.”)
2 rounds in 3.5 seconds at 60 feet (“From the opposite curb to the front door.”)
The course was shot twice over each month (later, less frequently).
Mike told me the 10-point scoring zone on the silhouette target was, as best he could recall, a 7-inch circle, with the next zone (9 points) measuring 9×13 inches. A hit anywhere else on the silhouette scored 6 points. Departmental competitions were held as additional motivation for skills development. As for the rest of the system, I’ll let his words speak for themselves (from an 11 March 2021 email):
“I forgot to mention the somewhat unique method for scoring the basic drills. The time was flexible in that there were penalties for overtime. The penalties were 1 point per quarter second over the time allowed for the string. So, if you fired 2 in 1.5 seconds at 10 feet, you got zero penalties. At 1.6 seconds you lost 1 point. At 1.8 you lost 2 points, etc. I had shooters all over the place. One sergeant never made the time but never missed the 10 ring and his times were not long enough to disqualify him.
Others always made the time, but were all over the target. It was quite interesting to get them to balance the speed and accuracy appropriate for their abilities and I think it gave them a proper mind set for actual combat.
Of course shot timers didn’t come along until 1982 so initially the timing was done to tenths of a second with a stop watch. The course was administered with 6 shooters on the line and the RM would walk down the line and each shooter would shoot individually.
A run through all 4 stages for 6 shooters took less than 10 minutes so the first half hour of a 2-hour training session was basic drills, followed by additional drills covering and teaching specific skills and techniques.
Initially the standard was 80 out of 100 on either string out of 2 tries. If a shooter failed to shoot an 80 in his first 2 attempts he was sent to a side range to dry practice and then given a 3rd attempt. Those who failed 3 times were required to come back, but only once on department time.
If they failed again they were required to come back on their own time. If they couldn’t qualify during the course of the training period — monthly at first but it got longer as the department grew, finally to quarterly — they were assigned to the range for remedial training. Should they require remedial training in any two consecutive training cycles, their fitness for duty would be reevaluated.
In short, they could get fired, and nobody hit the street who wasn’t currently qualified. The training had teeth.”
How good were BPD officers? 85% hits when the national average was 15%. (Lyle says this number would be higher but for one outlier shooting in which an officer missed with his entire first magazine.) Anyone who has studied the matter knows how significant this is. Most cops can’t shoot well, and the few who can are usually self-motivated enthusiasts. Not one officer was killed in a gunfight when Mike was BPD rangemaster. A few anecdotes flesh out the tale:
The new regional FBI agents based in Bakersfield usually shot the BPD department qual for familiarization. Mike’s course of fire quickly humbled the mostly cocky G-men. (The Bureau actually used some of Mike’s written documentation as source material for their own efforts.)
When training in the L.A. area, Waidelich and other Bakerfield P.D. officers frequently heard comments like, “Oh. You’re from BAKERSFIELD. Our bank robbers go there to get killed.” Clearly the department had a widespread and well-earned reputation as real deal gunfighters.
Once, a visiting firearms instructor expressed skepticism when Mike described the BPD standards:
“You mean to tell me EVERY officer in your department passes this course?”
“Everyone from the Chief on down.”
“I’ll believe it when I see it!”
Mike got on the radio. “Dispatch, please send two officers to the range.” Shortly, two random BPD cops arrived, and both shot better than 90% scores, cold. “I can call two more but the results will be the same.”
In 2016 — long after Waidelich retired — Kern County law enforcement killed more people in the line of duty than any other county in the country, many much more populous. (Bakersfield is in west Kern County.) I believe this statistic is the result of three factors:
1) a relatively conservative political district where cops don’t automatically get fired for using their weapons,
2) a target rich environment full of gang bangers and oilfield roughnecks, and
3) the lasting influence of Mike Waidelich’s cutting-edge training.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Want to get better at handling the hard hitters? Here are six ways to reduce felt recoil from the bench.
When we shoot from a bench rest, we’re usually sighting in a rifle or testing ammunition. When doing either, it’s important to get the best shot to shot results we can. The problem is that sustained recoil can negatively impact not only your shooting but also your enjoyment. There are some ways you can mitigate felt recoil when shooting from a bench rest, and these techniques become very important when you crawl behind a hard-kicking rifle.
The general consensus among firearms trainers is that most experienced adult shooters can withstand about 20 shots from a bench rest with a .30-06 Springfield rifle without experiencing excessive discomfort or a negative impact on accuracy and precision. The amount of free recoil energy the average .30-06 rifle with a scope will generate is right at about 20 foot-pounds. Of course, some rifles recoil much harder. A .338 Winchester Magnum can generate almost twice as much free recoil energy.
But it’s not always about free recoil energy.
Due to the configuration of some rifles and their lack of a soft butt pad, even lighter recoiling rifles can be uncomfortable to shoot, and too, everyone has different recoil tolerance levels.
Years ago, I purchased a Marlin 1895 Cowboy lever action rifle in .45-70 Government. Based on recoil calculations, that rifle recoiled with just a tad more than 20 foot-pounds of free recoil energy.
However, because of the way the rifle was configured with its thin hard plastic butt plate, it was painful to shoot from the bench. Shooting while standing offhand wasn’t bad at all, but after four or five shots off a bench with full-power loads, your eyes would start watering.
If you’re going to be doing a good bit of shooting from a bench rest with a rifle that has a bit of bite, try some of these techniques to help diminish that bite. Individually they all work, but by combining them you can usually make a rifle that’s no fun at all to shoot from a bench at least tolerable enough to allow you to test several loads and/or sight it in.
1: Hold Her With Passion
As soon as a rifle fires, it will begin moving to the rear. If there is a space between the rifle’s butt pad and your shoulder, that movement and impact will enhance recoil pain. This is especially true if the rifle does not have a soft butt pad.
Before you press the trigger, make sure the butt stock is snug against your shoulder—but be careful not to pull the rifle back into your shoulder forcibly. The stress of your muscles will make it more difficult to hold the rifle on target steady.
2: As Mom Would Say: Sit Up!
When most shooters get behind a rifle positioned on a bench rest, they tend to position the rifle as close to the bench as possible. If you do that and you’re about 6 feet tall, with most benches you will need to lean over to get low enough to place your shoulder on the rifle stock and your eye behind the sights. This position puts more of your body behind the rifle and when the rifle recoils your body will absorb—feel—more of the recoil because your body will not move easily to the rear.
The closer you can sit to an erect position when you shoot from a bench the less you will feel the punch on your shoulder. It more closely replicates shooting from a standing position. A gunsmith I know who builds dangerous game rifles built his test shooting bench high enough to shoot from while standing to limit felt recoil.
3: Get Yourself a Sissy Pad
One of the easiest ways to limit the pain associated with recoil when shooting from a benchrest is to use a sissy pad. These are pads you strap on your shoulder to help mitigate recoil. Caldwell and PAST offer several versions—and they do work. Your range buddies might call you a sissy and rag on you for using one … but just ignore them.
Remember, the reason you’re shooting from a bench is to evaluate ammo or sight in your rifle, and both need to be accomplished with as much precision as possible. You don’t shoot from a bench rest to demonstrate your manhood.
4: Slings Aren’t Just For Shoulders
When I am doing a lot of shooting from the bench with a rifle that has stiff recoil, I like to take the rifle strap and loop it firmly around the top front sandbag(s). This can tremendously reduce the reward force of the rifle during recoil, because the rifle must pull against the weight of the sandbag as it moves to the rear. If you’re using a real sandbag—filled with sand—as opposed to those filled with polymer pellets, this technique works like a lead sled.
5: It’s Time to Get a Suppressor
The baffles inside a suppressor redirect and slow the gas produced when a rifle is fired. This, in conjunction with the weight a suppressor adds to the rifle, helps reduce free recoil energy, sometimes by more than 25 percent.
But when it comes to felt recoil, the reduction can seem even more. With big-bore, hard-kicking rifles, the reduction is very noticeable because big-bore rifles require big, heavy suppressors. For example, the Banish V46 V2 suppressor, which will work on 0.375- and 0.458-caliber rifles, weighs right at 1 pound.
6: It’s OK to Put on Weight
The Caldwell Lead Sled is a mechanical rifle rest that has a cradle for your rifle’s forearm and a pocket for the butt stock. It’s adjustable and holds the rifle reasonably firmly. If you add one or more bags of lead shot to the undertray, it can eliminate a lot of felt recoil. The system, however, is not perfect because you are dramatically altering the way the rifle reacts to recoil … and this can alter your point of impact.
If you sight in your rifle with a lead sled, you should confirm your zero without it. Also, with extremely hard-recoiling rifles, the lead sled can strain the bedding of the rifle and, in some cases with extensive shooting, cause damage.
A lead sled still has application and is especially useful with new or young shooters who are very recoil sensitive, but if you properly employ the first five techniques a Lead Sled is not necessary.
Don’t Overdo It
All these techniques—individually or combined—can help you make hard kickers more tolerable to shoot. But even with these techniques, some rifles can still be uncomfortable. It’s not just the impact on your shoulder; it can be the sort of whiplash sensation applied to your neck.
One of the best things to do when shooting a heavy recoiling rifle is to shoot in moderation. A sustained pounding is what puts professional fighters on the canvas, and it does little to help you shoot your best.
Physics Lesson: Free Recoil Energy
If you use the internet as a source for recoil calculation, you’ll find various calculators you can plug data into to determine the recoil velocity, recoil energy and recoil impulse of a gun. Ironically, just as two shooters will experience the felt recoil of the same gun differently, these calculators will give you different results—they’ll be close but rarely identical.
But does it matter?
Not really, because none of these calculators will tell you exactly what it feels like to shoot a specific gun with a specific load. Still, because humans are conditioned to rate or score everything by numbers, we want a numerical answer to everything including how hard a gun will kick.
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) sets the specifications manufacturers follow when they make guns and ammo and is a great source for free recoil energy information.
According to SAAMI, the momentum of a free-recoiling firearm is equal and opposite in direction to the momentum of the bullet (or shot charge/slug and wad column) and the propellant gases. Because propellant gases are extremely difficult to weigh, SAAMI equates the propellant gas weight to the powder charge weight.
But SAAMI tempers the velocity of the propellent gases based on gun type. The way the different calculators express the velocity of propellent gases is one reason you’ll see different results from different formulas.
According to SAAMI, the formula for determining the free recoil energy (FRE) of a firearm can be expressed as:
FRE = WF/(2×32.17) ((WEVE + WPCVEf)/(7000 x WF))2
where:
WF = weight of firearms in pounds
WE = weight (in grains of the ejecta—bullet or shot and wad column)
VE = velocity of the ejecta in feet per second
WPC = weight of projectile charge in grains
7000 = conversion factor for grains to pounds
VEƒ = velocity of the propellant gases (VE) multiplied by gun factor (ƒ)
where the value of ƒ =:
High Powered Rifle – 1.75VE
Shotguns (average length) – 1.50VE
Shotguns (long barrel) – 1.25VE
Pistols & revolvers – 1.50VE
Given this formula, a 7-pound high-powered rifle firing a 165-grain bullet with a powder charge weight of 40 grains at a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps would have 18.26 foot-pounds of free recoil energy (FRE):
WF WE. VE WPC VE ƒ WF. FRE
7/(2×32.17) ((165*2700+40*(2700*1.75)/(7000*7))2=18.26 foot/pounds
I plugged this same data into three online recoil calculators, and the results were: 18.19, 18.2, 18.88, for an average of 18.42 foot-pounds for free recoil energy. You can take the time to work the formula, but that time will be mostly a waste because we’re all going to experience recoil force differently … at least by as much as the varied results provided by online calculators.
Categories
Freezing to Death By Will Dabbs, MD
What’s it really like to die? Well, nobody actually knows. There are those who claim to have died and then come back to life, but that’s not technically accurate. Some of the support structure might have failed only to be kickstarted later, but that vital essence is either there or it is not.
Even this deep into the Information Age, death remains maddeningly enigmatic. As a physician, it has fallen to me to pronounce quite a few people dead. I’ll grant you a little insight into the sausage factory that is modern medicine. We still don’t much know what that practically means.
Life is a curious inscrutable spark. Biology opines that life begats life. All living things must spawn from something previously alive. Mary Shelley’s vivid imagination notwithstanding, we can’t make it de novo. We can only identify when it is gone.
In a manner of speaking, death is simply the absence of life. The sundry machinations involved in declaring someone dead—auscultating for breath and cardiac sounds, assessing pupillary and corneal reflexes, stuff like that—are all designed to assess whether or not that vital ember has actually been extinguished. Like most things, that can be a curiously inexact science.
Baby, It’s Cold Outside …
I was stationed in the Alaskan interior as a soldier. Mine was an arctic combat unit, so the winter was our primary training time. This close to the Arctic Circle it was dark even at midday. It was also just insanely cold.
That’s not hyperbole. The thermometer flirted with 50 degrees below zero. Under those conditions, the world just gets a little bit weird. There is typically no wind and no precipitation. It is as though nature just gives up and quits.
Digs
Uncle Sam has ample experience in such unforgiving spaces. Arctic tents will accommodate 10 troops arrayed like the spokes of a wagon wheel radiating out from a center pole. Each tent sports a Yukon stove that runs off of most any flammable liquid.
This day we were using JP8 jet fuel, a greasy, diesel-like concoction that is actually a bit challenging to conflagrate. The stove fed from an inverted five-gallon jerry can that sat outside on a stand. Once nicely tooled up, a Yukon stove creates the most mesmerizing sound.
In sleep mode, you lower the canvas tent down to help retain as much heat as possible. One poor schmuck has to stay awake and act as fire guard. The year before I got there, one of these tents caught fire and killed 10 GIs. The fire guard job is important.
What any normal person really dreads is having to change out the jerry can. Five gallons of fuel lasts a while. However, once the stove runs dry, that canvas tent gets cold fast. The fire guard has to traipse outside, wrestle a fresh can in place, and then restart the stove. That sucked. Nobody wanted to be that guy.
Life Goes Pear-Shaped
We were all nestled snugly in our arctic sleeping bags, but there is just so much insulation you can get out of those rascals. I have indeed slept exposed in one of those things under such frigid conditions. It will keep you from dying, but you’ll never be comfortable.
Sleep deprivation is part and parcel for an Army officer in the field. I had been up for a couple of days already and finally crawled into my fart sack with maybe three hours to go until it was time to get up and do it all over again.
Soon after I fell asleep, the stove ran out of gas. As it was close to time to get up anyway, the fire guard just woke everyone, myself included, and cleared everybody else out. Exhausted, I promptly fell asleep again.
Some while later I awoke to find myself alone and cold-soaked. In the absence of the stove, the ambient temperature had dropped to 50 below zero in no time. I was shivering uncontrollably and badly hypothermic. My boots, parka, and gear were outside my sleeping bag. Expeditiously donning that stuff didn’t make things much better.
Dying is Not So Bad
It was maybe 75 meters to the TOC (Tactical Operations Center) where it was always warm. I gathered up my kit and my weapon and stumbled in that general direction. About halfway there, I started to feel REALLY good.
Before one dies of hypothermia, they develop the weirdest sense of euphoria. Folks who succumb to cold are often found naked having inexplicably removed their clothes.
In my case I just wanted to sit down at the base of a tree and rest. I figured just a few minutes should be enough to leave me rejuvenated. After some fuzzy mental gymnastics I nonetheless inexplicably decided to crack on.
By the time I staggered into the TOC, I didn’t know or care who or where I was. My buddies recognized my sordid state and set me up in front of the stove with something hot to drink.
Fifteen minutes later I was back in the land of the living. By definition, nobody knows what it is really like to die. I can tell you from experience, however, that in the cold arctic wastes death can be positively seductive.
Categories
9 Home Invasion Stereotypes
Editor’s Note: This article is not intended as legal advice. Please familiarize yourself with your state and local laws, and contact a qualified attorney with any questions you might have.
There is the old saying that a man’s home is his castle — albeit smaller and certainly with better creature comforts like indoor plumbing, central heat, and likely air conditioning. Castles were defended by a lord’s personal troops, where an individual must defend the home and protect his or her family.
The “Castle Doctrine” governs when a person may lawfully use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves within their home or other protected spaces.
The Castle Doctrine originated in early 17th-century English common law, establishing that an individual has no duty to retreat when attacked in their own home, treating the home as a “castle.”
This concept was famously articulated by Sir Edward Coke in 1604 as “the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress.” It legally justifies the use of reasonable, sometimes deadly, force against intruders. It might seem odd that this originated in England, even as it remains a foundation of American self-defense law.
The doctrine was adopted into American law following independence and has been deeply embedded in the American understanding of self-defense, property rights, and individual protection. In the 19th century, U.S. courts, notably in Ohio in 1876, reinforced this by holding that a “true man” is not obliged to flee an assailant, thereby expanding the idea of defending one’s home and honor.
According to criminal defense attorney Emma K. Wittmann of Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm and “Attorneys On Retainer” (AOR), the Castle Doctrine may seem straightforward in principle. Yet, its application varies dramatically across jurisdictions and often raises nuanced questions of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality.
Castle Doctrine: No Need to Flee the Home
As established, those in their home don’t need to attempt to flee or engage in a “duty to retreat,” as they might while outside the home.
“The Castle Doctrine establishes that individuals have no duty to retreat when defending themselves in their own home, based on the principle that ‘a person’s home is his castle.’ At its core, the Castle Doctrine provides that a person who is lawfully present in their dwelling has no duty to retreat before using reasonable — even deadly — force against an intruder who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter,” explained Wittmann.
“In contrast, the traditional duty to retreat requires individuals to avoid using deadly force if they can safely retreat and escape the threat. The castle doctrine serves to remove this requirement within one’s ‘castle’ or home,” Wittmann added.
Reasonable Belief in Danger
The most important thing to understand about the Castle Doctrine is that it does not grant a blanket license to use lethal force. It is also not limited just to the home, depending on the state.
The Castle Doctrine is a concept that all 50 states agree on, at least to some extent. However, there are numerous subtle differences in Castle Doctrine laws across the United States, which can dramatically affect whether an individual can be charged with a crime.
Some states have a Castle Doctrine that only covers your home, whereas other states’ Castle Doctrine protects additional places, such as one’s vehicles.
A key point is that the Castle Doctrine requires that an individual using self-defense must “reasonably believe” that an intruder poses an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony. To this end, the defender must determine that the deadly physical force was therefore necessary to prevent imminent harm or death to themselves or another person and respond proportionally.
“In any Self-Defense analysis, we are evaluating what a ‘reasonable’ person would have done if they were in your shoes,” said Wittmann.
“Reasonable belief” or “reasonable person” also refers to a hypothetical average person, or someone who uses common sense, exercises ordinary judgment, and reacts proportionally to the situation, Wittmann noted.
She said that, in practice, “reasonable” is determined by the jurors at trial, thereby highlighting the stakes.
“Picture you are at trial and the Jurors, members of your local community, are hearing about your case. They decide if they would have responded the same way you did. The Jurors decide if you acted reasonably under the circumstances,” Wittmann continued. “You still need to show that you did have a real, honest belief that the intruder posed an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. This is your subjective belief.
“But when we talk about what a reasonable person would have done in your situation, we evaluate it from an objective viewpoint. Would other members of your jury, local community, and the public have thought the same way you did about the threat posed?”
Where You Live Matters — A Lot!
When it comes to firearms and self-defense, there is no substitute for knowledge. Gun owners are expected to know and then observe the laws in their state and their local community. That includes knowing how the Castle Doctrine applies.
It is also something that should never be assumed, regardless of whether the home is in California, New York, Texas, or Montana.
“While all 50 states agree on the concept of Castle Doctrine, there are subtle differences among the states,” warned Wittmann. “For example, the rules can differ regarding when a person is allowed to use deadly force, such as whether it is necessary to wait until an intruder has entered the home, or if an attempted entry alone is sufficient to justify it. It is always important to educate yourself on your state laws, so you know how to act within the legal bounds of your state.”
For example, New York’s Castle Doctrine allows residents to use reasonable force, including deadly force, against an intruder without a duty to retreat if they are inside their home. It does not apply to the surrounding property, where a duty to retreat typically exists. As New York is not a “Stand Your Ground” state, outside the home, individuals generally have a duty to retreat if they can do so safely, including the yard, porch, or driveway.
Other states, such as Michigan, do not require residents to flee or retreat, including the use of reasonable force if an intruder is breaking into a dwelling or business, or attempting to remove someone from a house or car unlawfully. The Castle Doctrine also applies to the curtilage, which is the area around the home, including an attached garage.
Yet, the use of reasonable force is still based on the threat.
“Attached garages are generally covered by the Castle Doctrine protections, while typically detached garages or storage sheds would not qualify for the same protection, though this can vary by state,” said Wittmann. “When it comes to a property theft in garage settings, Castle Doctrine protection is generally limited to situations involving threats to personal safety rather than pure property protection.”
Protecting People Not Property
Using deadly force to stop a car theft would likely not be considered a reasonable use of force unless there was also a threat to an individual. For the same reason, deadly force is not considered reasonable if someone is causing property damage.
There are situations where it can become a bit blurrier.
“The Castle Doctrine and crime prevention statutes both involve the justified use of defensive force, but they apply in distinct legal contexts with differing scopes and thresholds,” suggested Wittmann. “The Castle Doctrine does not protect property; it protects people. Generally, individuals are not allowed to use deadly physical force to protect just personal property.”
Yet, crime prevention statutes, by contrast, do state that a person is justified in threatening or using physical or deadly force against another if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent another from committing a specific criminal offense.
It is also important to note that individuals need to understand when an intruder is no longer a threat.
“The Castle Doctrine requires the individual using self-defense to reasonably believe that the intruder poses an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony,” said Wittmann. “Imminent means ‘right now.’ The Castle Doctrine does not protect individuals pursuing or retaliating against an intruder if the immediate threat has ended.”
Someone attempting to flee, even with items stolen from the house, isn’t an imminent threat any longer.
“If the homeowner no longer has a reasonable belief that the intruder poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and the person is actively leaving or has left the premises, the homeowner is going to have a much more difficult time arguing that his use of force is justified,” Wittmann continued.
It’s Never a “Get Out of Jail Free Card”
Obviously, the Castle Doctrine should never be viewed as a “get out of jail free card,” and it doesn’t provide blanket immunity for using deadly force in the home. Regardless of the situation, homeowners who used deadly force, even when they viewed it as necessary, should expect an investigation.
The law creates a “rebuttable presumption” of fear, meaning it tilts in favor of the homeowner. Yet, prosecutors can argue that the defender was not actually in reasonable fear for their safety. Likewise, the Castle Doctrine generally does not apply if the person entering has a right to be there (e.g., a co-owner), is a law enforcement officer in performance of duties, or if the homeowner is engaged in illegal activity at the time.
“The Castle Doctrine provides powerful legal protection, but it is not absolute,” explained Wittmann. “Castle Doctrine does not provide a blanket authorization for using deadly physical force in every scenario involving a perceived risk. Remember, the Castle Doctrine is a defense and not a preclusion of prosecution. Self-defense is a justification for an act that would otherwise be a crime.”
Some states have crime prevention statutes that say a person is justified in threatening or using physical or deadly force against another if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent another from committing a specific criminal offense. That may include preventing arson of an occupied structure or burglary.
“Any time you act in self-defense in this type of scenario, you should expect and prepare to be the subject of a criminal investigation,” said Wittmann. “The result of the investigation hinges on your set of facts, any statements you choose to make to the police, and your state’s laws.”
Conclusion
Thank you to Emma K. Wittmann of Attorneys On Retainer for the insight on understanding the Castle Doctrine for the purposes of this article. The Attorneys On Retainer Program provides self-defense legal coverage, incident-related assistance, and affiliate program features. AOR operates through a direct attorney-client relationship, ensuring personalized legal representation in all 50 states. AOR is backed by The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm, the only law firm in the nation that exclusively handles self-defense cases.