Categories
All About Guns Ammo

9mm vs 45 ACP–A Different Kind of Comparison by RICHARD MANN

Yes, we went there. But, this is a different take on the most common and irritating debate among gun enthusiasts, and you will learn something new regardless of which side you end up on.

9mm vs. 45 ACP

The 9mm vs 45 ACP argument has been going on for more than a century. Many believed the two World Wars answered this question after Americans used their .45s to beat the Germans and their 9mms— twice. But in 1967, the Illinois State Police adopted the Smith & Wesson Model 39 pistol in 9mm, and in 1985 the U.S. Military transitioned from their war-winner to the Beretta M9. A year later, the supposed failure of a 9mm during the FBI’s notorious Miami shootout had all the .45 lovers screaming, “We told you so!” and we ended up with the .40 S&W. But today, the 9 mm is our most prevalent self-defense cartridge.

Why? Basically, for the following three reasons:

The best 9mm loads deliver terminal performance similar to many 45 ACP loads.

Pistols in 9mm hold between 20 and 30 percent more ammo than .45 pistols.

Felt recoil of 9mm handguns is about half as much as pistols chambered in 45 ACP.

This is why the FBI and many other law enforcement agencies have transitioned back to the 9mm. Few will argue these three facts, but are the advantages offered by the nine substantial enough to make it the better choice?

It’s true that the best 9mm loads are equal in performance to many 45 ACP loads. However, if recovered-bullet diameter and penetration mean what we think they do, the best 9mm loads are not the equal of the best 45 ACP loads. Regarding capacity, a first-grader can see a 9mm pistol holds more ammo, but most civilian self-defense shootings are resolved with between one and eight shots. So, capacity might not be all that important after all. But what about shootability? Are 9mm pistols that much easier to shoot more accurately and faster? To find that out, I conducted a test to get to the bottom of the 9mm vs 45 ACP debate.

Testing 9mm vs 45 ACP

I selected three drills I thought represented varied self-defense shooting situations. To eliminate as much human error as possible, there was no drawing from the holster or reloads; all the drills were started at the low ready and required less than seven shots. The first drill was my standard defensive-handgun-test drill, which I call the Forty-Five Drill. It requires placing five shots inside a 5-inch circle at 5 yards in less than 5 seconds. It would specifically highlight recoil control during rapid, sustained fire at a relatively small target.

The next drill was a modified version of Jeff Cooper’s famous El Presidente Drill. In this variation, you engage three steel, torso-size targets at 10 yards, spaced 10 feet apart. All that’s required are two hits anywhere on each target. This drill highlights recoil control and target transition, with minimal emphasis on shot placement.

ammo tested

The final drill was a variation of another Cooper drill known as the Mozambique or Failure Drill. It would be performed at 5 yards, without taking the time to evaluate the effects of the first two shots before firing the head shot. Using an Action Target PT Hostage Target, two shots are fired center mass and then a shot on the swinging head plate is attempted as fast as possible. With this drill, we could evaluate recoil control during fast application on a close-in target, with a transition to a single, precision shot.

I recruited a SWAT officer to help me with this test, and each drill was conducted three times by each shooter, with each handgun and with each test load. The guns used for the test were two identical, lightweight Tisas 1911 Bantam Carry handguns—one in 9mm and one in 45 ACP. Also, standard-pressure and +P loads for both cartridges were used during the test.

drill tables

The Results

We did not score this like a shooting match, and we only counted attempts at each drill that were miss free; three clean runs were required with each pistol, with each load, on each drill. The goal was not to see how fast we could miss, it was to see how quickly we could get hits with. Using a shot timer, we recorded the total time it took to complete each drill and the split times between every shot fired. Splits, with a transition between targets, were recorded as “transition” times.

Given the identical pistols, aside from capacity and terminal performance, recoil is the only real difference between 9mm vs 45 ACP. What the results give us is a look at how recoil limits a shooter’s ability to fire multiple shots fast and accurately. There are several practical ways to look at the data.

shooting at the range

Both the 9 mm and .45 ACP pistols were put through several drills with various loads in order to evaluate shooting speed and accuracy.


Overall

With all the data averaged, split times were 18 percent faster with the 9mm. This essentially means we could accurately fire five to six 9mm rounds as fast as we could accurately fire four 45 ACP rounds. Transition times—the time it took to switch targets—were very close, but the 9mm did have a six-percent advantage. Regarding the time it took to complete each engagement, the 9mm was faster by 10 percent. Keep in mind, these numbers represent the results obtained by both shooters and all four test loads.

testing 9 mm vs. .45 ACP

By using identical (apart from the chambering) pistols, the author was able to remove much of the “gun variable” from testing 9 mm vs. .45 ACP.

Drill by Drill

Another way to look at the results of that 9mm vs 45 ACP test is by the individual drills. Two things stand out here. The first is that when precision was required, such as repeatedly hitting a 5-inch target in the Forty-Five Drill, the 9mm had a substantial advantage. In the El Prez Drill, where precision shot placement was not as critical, the nine’s advantage was less obvious. And finally, with the Failure Drill, you can see that when hammering a target up close, the difference was not that much. However, when slowing down to make the precision shot, it took longer to transition/recover from recoil with the 45 ACP.

By Load

What we’re learning in this 9mm vs 45 ACP test is not earth-shattering; pistols with more recoil are harder to shoot fast and accurately. It’s not like we didn’t know that. However, I think the most interesting thing this data shows is how different 9mm and 45 ACP loads performed. As you can see, the standard-pressure 45 ACP load with 8.77 ft.-lbs. of recoil performed very similarly to the +P 9 mm load with only 5.3 ft.-lbs. of recoil. You may be able to perform just as well with a little more recoil, but at some point, the recoil of the .45 will begin to negatively impact on-target performance.

Tisas Bantam Carry 1911

(l.) The Tisas Bantam Carry 1911 served as the test platform, since it can be had in 9 mm or .45 ACP. (r.) Weight difference between the .45 ACP and 9 mm Tisas 1911s was only .7 ounce (empty), and each pistol functioned with the utmost reliability throughout testing.

For us, this was painfully obvious with the 10.72 ft.-lbs of recoil delivered by the 230-grain +P 45 ACP load. Compared with the 124-grain +P 9mm load, our times increased across-the-board by about 20 percent. What this data fails to effectively convey is how hard 10.72 ft.-lbs. of recoil is out of a 27-ounce handgun—it is not enjoyable.

testing 9 mm and .45 ACP ammunition

To collect the test data, over the course of several days hundreds of rounds of 9 mm and .45 ACP ammunition were fired, and the shot times for every round fired were recorded.

Terminally Speaking
This was a lot of shooting to prove a known fact, but it does provide an idea of exactly how much recoil can negatively impact shooting performance. What you might be wondering is exactly what you’re paying for with more recoil? If we’re going to reduce our ability to shoot fast, what type of terminal performance will we get in return? To enhance the shooting data, we also fired each of the four test loads into Clear Ballistics gelatin.

The 6.32-cubic-inch crush cavity delivered by the Federal 230-grain +P HST load is impressive, but it comes with a cost, and that cost is an uncomfortable shooting experience and an increase in the time it takes to fire multiple shots. Measuring recoil can be subjective, but more never helps you shoot better. Everyone will have different limits, but at some point, you must decide if the terminal performance you gain is worth the reduction in shootability that comes with it.

What the information from this test—and the massive spreadsheet created to digest it—might do best is to explain why most law enforcement agencies have gone back to the 9mm. With the best 9mm loads, you get terminal performance similar to standard 45 ACP loads out of a gun that holds more ammunition and is easier to shoot fast and accurately. But, what this also shows is that with a 45 ACP, you can select a lesser-recoiling load and shoot nearly as fast and accurately as you can with a 9mm pistol, while delivering similar terminal performance. If you do that, the only thing you’re giving up with the .45 is capacity.

No one ever said the choice is easy, and the right answer will not be the same for everyone. Above all, the most important takeaway might be that, while picking the right cartridge is important, it may not be as important as selecting the right load for it.


9mm vs 45 ACP Cartridge/Ammunition Synopsis

Comparing the 9mm vs 45 ACP cartridges by themselves is simply not enough; ammunition must be taken into consideration. The following information offers a comprehensive look at the ammunition used in the test. There are better and worse loads for both cartridges out there, but here you can look at two loads that deliver average performance, and two loads that represent the best performance available from each cartridge.

.45 and 9mm pistols

table
table

Categories
All About Guns

A S&W Model 631

Engraved Smith & Wesson Model 631 Kit Gun Revolver by John Adams

Categories
All About Guns

Just another hint on what I want for Christmas!

Categories
Uncategorized

The War – (This may or may not be true) RUSSIANS PREPARE TO ABANDON WESTERN KHERSON OBLAST! UKRAINIAN ADVANCES IN NORTHEAST STALLED.

Russian guns in action in eastern Ukraine.

Latest Millitary News from the Russian Front – Institute for the Study of War (ISW) Russian Offensive Campaign Analysis for October 19

Institute for the Study of War
Katherine Lawlor, Karolina Hird, Grace Mappes, Riley Bailey, George Barros, and Frederick W. Kagan October 19, 8:00 pm ET Click here to see ISW’s interactive map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report. Russian authorities are likely setting information conditions to justify planned Russian retreats and significant territorial losses in Kherson Oblast. Commander of Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine Army General Sergey Surovikin reported during an appearance on Russian television that the Russian military leadership has to make “difficult decisions” regarding Kherson Oblast and accused Ukraine of planning to strike civilian and residential infrastructure in Kherson Oblast.[1] Kherson Occupation Head Vladimir Saldo relatedly noted that his administration is evacuating the west bank of the Dnipro River in anticipation of a “large-scale” Ukrainian offensive.[2] Surovikin‘s and Saldo’s statements are likely attempts to set information conditions for a full Russian retreat across the Dnipro River, which would cede Kherson City and other significant territory in Kherson Oblast to advancing Ukrainian troops. Russian military leaders have evidently learned from previous informational and operational failures during the recent Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast and are therefore likely attempting to mitigate the informational and operational consequences of failing to defend against another successful Ukrainian advance. Russian forces are also setting information conditions to conduct a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP). The Russian military may believe that breaching the dam could cover their retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River and prevent or delay Ukrainian advances across the river. Surovikin claimed on October 18 that he has received information that Kyiv intends to strike the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), which he alleged would cause destructive flooding in Kherson Oblast.[3] Saldo echoed this claim and warned that Ukrainian forces intend to strike dams upstream of Kherson City.[4] Russian authorities likely intend these warnings about a purported Ukrainian strike on the Kakhovka HPP to set information conditions for Russian forces to damage the dam and blame Ukraine for the subsequent damage and loss of life, all while using the resulting floods to cover their own retreat further south into Kherson Oblast. The Kremlin could attempt to leverage such a false-flag attack to overshadow the news of a third humiliating retreat for Russian forces, this time from western Kherson. Such an attack would also further the false Russian information operation portraying Ukraine as a terrorist state that deliberately targets civilians. Russia continues to use the guise of civilian “evacuations” as a cover for the mass forced removal of civilians from Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. Saldo’s announcement of a mass withdra

There is a lot of news today, both military and political. So I am going to have to divide the Posts again. This one will cover military news and, assuming I can manage it, a later post will cover political issues.

SOUTHERN UKRAINE

The Kherson Counter Offensive

“Russian authorities are likely setting information conditions to justify planned Russian retreats and significant territorial losses in Kherson Oblast. Commander of Russian Forces Surovikin reported during an appearance on Russian television that the Russian military leadership has to make “difficult decisions” regarding Kherson Oblast and accused Ukraine of planning to strike civilian and residential infrastructure in Kherson Oblast. Kherson Occupation Head Saldo relatedly noted that his administration is evacuating the west bank of the Dnipro River in anticipation of a “large-scale” Ukrainian offensive. Surovikin‘s and Saldo’s statements are likely attempts to set information conditions for a full Russian retreat across the Dnipro River, which would cede Kherson City and other significant territory in Kherson Oblast to advancing Ukrainian troops. Russian military leaders have evidently learned from previous informational and operational failures during the recent Ukrainian counter offensive in Kharkiv Oblast and are therefore likely attempting to mitigate the informational and operational consequences of failing to defend against another successful Ukrainian advance.”

This paragraph shows that the Russians are less tone deaf to Ukrainian advances and are “setting conditions” (e.g., preparing Russians) for another upcoming defeat and withdrawal. The main questions appear to be how orderly such a retreat will be and what opportunities it will afford advancing Ukrainian troops.

“Russian forces are also setting information conditions to conduct a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (KHPP). The Russian military may believe that breaching the dam could cover their retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River and prevent or delay Ukrainian advances across the river. Surovikin claimed on October 18 that he has received information that Kyiv intends to strike the dam, which he alleged would cause destructive flooding in Kherson Oblast. Saldo echoed this claim and warned that Ukrainian forces intend to strike dams upstream of Kherson City. Russian authorities likely intend these warnings about a purported Ukrainian strike on the KHPP to set information conditions for Russian forces to damage the dam and blame Ukraine for the subsequent damage and loss of life, all while using the resulting floods to cover their own retreat further south into Kherson Oblast. The Kremlin could attempt to leverage such a false-flag attack to overshadow the news of a third humiliating retreat for Russian forces, this time from western Kherson. Such an attack would also further the false Russian information operation portraying Ukraine as a terrorist state that deliberately targets civilians.”

What possible reason Kyiv could have for taking such an action against its own civilians is not explained and makes no sense. This is just another example of Russia making inherently unbelievable claims and expecting them to be accepted. Of course, actually carrying the threat out would make things even worse.

“Russian sources widely claimed that Ukrainian troops conducted another general counter offensive in northwestern Kherson Oblast on October 19. A Russian occupation deputy claimed that Ukrainian troops went on the offensive around noon on October 19 and attacked from northern Kherson Oblast about 30km south of the Kherson Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border toward Beryslav. Other Russian sources similarly claimed that Ukrainian troops launched an offensive south of the Nova Kamianka-Dudchany area and attacked toward Sukhanove and Piatykhatky, both near the current frontline in northwestern Kherson Oblast and about 35km north of Beryslav. ISW is unable to verify these claims. Russian milbloggers (RMBs) reported that elements of the 126th Coastal Defense Brigade, 11th, 80th, and 83rd Air Assault Brigades, and 76th Guards Air Assault Division are holding the line of defense in this area and prevented significant Ukrainian advances. These elements, especially the 126th Coastal Defense Brigade, are severely degraded and understrength, and some have likely been active in Kherson Oblast without rest or rotation for most of the war.”

These elements were once among Russia’s most capable units, but have now been reduced to mere shadows of their former selves. Unless augmented by substantial numbers of additional troops, it is highly unlikely that they can hold the line in northern and northwestern Kherson. These units were probably chosen for the defense of this sector as they are more likely to be able to withdraw in better order than less experienced troops.

Beryslav is the major Russian supply and logistics point on the west bank of the Kokhovka Reservoir and presumably the Russians will abandon the northwestern part of the Oblast before Ukrainian troops can seriously threaten it.

“Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command (USOC) noted that Ukrainian forces are continuing “active combat operations” and focusing on “creating favorable conditions for the development of further offensives.” Ukrainian forces additionally continued their interdiction campaign against Russian concentration areas in Kherson Oblast as part of the ongoing counteroffensive. USOC and other Ukrainian military sources reported that Ukrainian strikes destroyed three ammunition warehouses around Beryslav, Nova Kakhkovka, and Kherson City on October 18. Ukrainian strikes likely also hit a Russian ferry crossing 3km north of Nova Kakhovka on the opposing bank of the Dnipro River. Satellite imagery from October 18 shows that Russian troops have completed the creation of a barge bridge near Kherson City as part of an effort to reconstitute river crossings as Ukrainian troops continue to target Russian transportation capabilities across the Dnipro River.”

Both the Russian statements and their construction of a barge bridge (a bridge generally constructed of steel planking aid across barges and not terribly sturdy) is evidence that Russia is preparing to abandon Kherson west of the Dnipro, as their forces there are overstressed.

Nothing of substance new to report in Zaporizhzhya Oblast – Russia statements indicate likely false shelling by Ukrainian of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and a supposed amphibious assault to take it.

EASTERN UKRAINE

The Luhansk Counter Offensive

“Russian forces continued to conduct limited assaults to recapture lost territory in northeastern Kharkiv Oblast on October 19. The UGS reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian assaults on Dvorichna, 17km northeast of Kupyansk in Kharkiv Oblast. The Luhansk People’s Republic Deputy Internal Minister reiterated claims that Russian forces captured Horobivka, also 17km northeast of Kupyansk on October 18, although ISW cannot independently verify that Russian forces have captured the settlement. The Russian Ministry of Defense (RMoD) claimed that Russian forces struck Ukrainian control points and concentrations of manpower and equipment throughout Kharkiv Oblast”.

“Russian and Ukrainian forces reportedly continued fighting along the Kreminna to Svatove line on October 19. A Russian source claimed that Russian forces repelled a Ukrainian assault on the Kyslivk in the direction of Svatove. The RMoD claimed that Russian forces repelled Ukrainian formations that attempted to cross the Zherebets River 16km northwest of Svatove, 15km west of Svatove, 11km west of Svatove) in Luhansk Oblast. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces repelled a Russian ground assault near Bilohorivka (12km south of Kreminna). A RMB claimed that Russian and Ukrainian forces are continuing to fight west of Kreminna in the vicinity of Terny, 18km northwest of Kreminna, and Torski, 16km west of Kreminna, although ISW cannot independently verify his claims.”

It appears that, for now, Ukrainian forces are largely defending against Russian attacks in northeastern Ukraine. Given that the Russians claim the capture of only one small village (which is not confirmed), it indicates that the Ukrainians are not overextended and are able to repel what appear to be largely limited and local counter attacks.

Fighting in Donetsk

“The UGS reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian ground attacks south of Bakhmut near four villages. Russian sources claimed that fighting is ongoing in Optyne and on Bakhmut’s eastern outskirts. Russian sources also claimed that fighting is ongoing in Soledar’s industrial zone and near Spirne, 18km northeast of Soledar. The UGS also reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian ground attacks northeast of Avdiivka, west of Donetsk City, and in western Donetsk Oblast. A Russian source claimed that Russian forces are continuing to fight southwest of Avdiivka. A Russian source also claimed that Russian forces attacked fortified Ukrainian positions in Marinka, and geolocated footage confirmed that Russian forces have advanced further down the highway north of Marinka. A Russian source claimed that positional battles are ongoing in the Vuhledar area in western Donetsk Oblast, and a different Russian source expressed continued concern that Ukrainian forces may launch a counter offensive in the Vuhledar area.”

Another day without even Russian claims of having captured a village – it appears that even their limited and local counter attacks are failing now. On the other hand, the rumors of another Ukrainian offensive – either in western Donetsk or northeastern Zaporizhzhya continue as a subject of great concern for the RMB community.

And finally…

Ukrainian attacks in Kherson appear to have cracked the Russian lines and forced them to prepare for withdrawal from the Oblast west of the Dnipro. However, announcing in advance that a retreat may occur is not necessarily good news for the Ukrainians, as it could indicate that the withdrawal will be less disordered than previous Russian retreats. Also, the apparent intention to blow the Kakhovka Dam is worrisome, although how much damage that would cause is unknown. The period of easy advances for the Ukrainians has at least temporarily ended in the northeast and seems to have come to a pause. To make sure that Ukrainian advances don’t halt altogether, the Western allies need to provide the Ukrainians additional support at this critical juncture.

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns California

California Judge Blocks Law Mandating Release of Gun Owners’ Personal Information by Jake Fogleman

California must stop sharing the personal identifying information of the state’s gun owners with academic researchers, a state judge has ruled.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Assembly Bill 173 on Friday. Judge Bacal noted that allowing the law to remain in effect while the case continued sufficiently threatened the privacy rights of California gun owners.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction,” she noted in her order.

The injunction represents a win for gun-rights advocates in their fight against the state’s attempts to share gun owners’ identifying information for outside research. The state already collects extensive data on gun and ammunition purchases–including an ammo registry. California’s practices make it an outlier, but one with the potential to be copied by other blue states seeking tighter gun laws. The successful injunction suggests advocates may be successful in permanently stopping the state from sharing that data with non-law enforcement entities and quash the potential for other states to follow California’s lead.

Assembly Bill 173, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) last September, directed the Attorney General to disclose personal information on gun purchasers to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. The information includes details such as the buyer’s name, address, date of birth, what they purchased, when and where they bought it, and more. It also authorized the center to share the information with any other “bona fide research institution.”

The now-blocked law is not the only time California officials have garnered controversy over how they handle gun owners’ private data. Earlier this June, The Reload broke news that the California Department of Justice had inadvertently leaked the names, racial identifications, home addresses, dates of birth, and permit classifications of the state’s concealed carry permit holders during a botched rollout of its 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. That information was made publicly available for download for several hours before eventually being scrubbed from the website. The state has since offered credit monitoring to all those it believes were affected by the leak.

Judge Bacal cited this incident as an example of the potential harm faced by gun owners if AB 173 were allowed to stay in effect.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021,” she said. “Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information. Furthermore, and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022.”

A coalition of gun-rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), filed suit against the law in state court in January. The groups celebrated the injunction.

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations, said in a press release. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) told The Reload that despite the ruling, he planned to continue defending the law in court.

“We are disappointed in this decision,” he said. “Research and collaboration would help protect our communities from gun violence and save lives. We will continue this fight in court.”

UPDATE 12:58 AM EASTERN 10-18-2022: This piece has been updated to include comment from Attorney General Bonta’s office.

Categories
All About Guns

The Minigun – M134 7.62×51mm Six-barrel Rotary Machine Gun

Categories
All About Guns

A AMT Model Automag II with a 5in barrel in Stainless Steel & in caliber 22mg,

AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 2
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 3
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 4
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 5
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 6
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 7
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 8
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 9
AMT Model Automag II 22mg, 5in Stainless, Made in USA, NO RESERVE .22 LR - Picture 10

Categories
All About Guns

Two 30-30 Lever-Action Rifles: Winchester Vs. Ted Williams

  

 

Categories
All About Guns

A Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem.

Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 1

Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 2
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 3
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 4
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 5
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 6
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 7
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 8
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 9
Sako A2 22-250 Bolt Rifle by Nic Kusmit , 24 Bull BBL Bolt Rifle .22-250 Rem. - Picture 10
Categories
All About Guns Cops

Ammoland FBI Under Reports Good Guys With Guns Saving Lives! ~ VIDEO

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The media will tell you that good guys with guns hardly ever stop attacks. Boy, are they wrong. According to compiled evidence by the Crime Prevention Research Center, some media outlets are underreporting the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) by law abiding gun owners where attacks are prevented. Some media is reporting only 10% of the actual DGUs in America by citizens.

Could this be because DGUs by law-abiding citizens don’t support the anti-gun narrative, or could it be simply due to faulty information they are given?

A look into the data provided by the FBI shows that discrepancies in DGUs are often caused by the “misclassifying of shootings” and “overlooked incidents.” Research by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows us that in several incidents, the FBI didn’t list attacks that were stopped by armed citizens when police had later apprehended the attackers. According to Crime Prevention Research Center, the FBI also has misidentified armed citizens as security officials resulting in the elimination of them being qualified as “citizen defensive gun uses.” You may remember Jack Wilson, who stopped an attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. The media narrative portrayed Wilson as a security guard when Wilson himself said he was just a parishioner who had volunteered to provide security during worship.

In some cases where armed civilians completely thwart mass public shootings (meaning, not even a shot fired), the FBI simply doesn’t report them. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, the FBI missed 25 of these incidents that would likely have become mass public shootings had it not been for the good guy or gal with a gun.

Due to these reasons for non-reporting, the FBI only showed 6.6% of mass killings being stopped by armed citizens, while the Crime Prevention Research Center shows 49.1% being stopped. In these cases, approximately half of the thwarted attacks occurred in gun-free zones.

As for those locations where citizens were legally allowed to carry a gun publicly, the number of thwarted attacks by armed citizens increased by almost 10% to 58% in 2021. What does this tell us? It tells us that gun-free zones put people in danger, and the media doesn’t want you to know when good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.

In March of 2013, 380,000 active duty and 70,000 retired law-enforcement officers were surveyed in a PoliceOne survey. 86% believed that casualties from public shootings could be reduced or avoided altogether if citizens were armed at the time of the attack. 77% supported the arming of teachers and/or school Administrators. Wouldn’t it make sense to consider the opinions of Police Officers and those who investigate these types of crimes on a daily basis?

It’s no surprise the media would use underreported data. But they and anti-gun extremists seem all too willing to put people in danger by spreading false information. The idea that gun-free zones are safe, citizens shouldn’t carry in public, and police departments should be defunded could be putting good people in some very dangerous situations without any way of protecting themselves.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host – The Loaded Mic


About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.