High Exposure

Yup. Army Navy store is still there too.

Don’t know if it is too far for you, but try IEI in Hazlet NJ. Give them a call and see if they have it: https://www.interstateelectronics.com/

That is a Taran Tactical Combat Master 2011. I imagine that all of the guns he uses are going to be Taran Customs of some kind just like JW2. EdIted to add: the base gun is an STI.

Nice! Now, rip the damn tape off the brass deflector and get some character marks on that blaster!

Soft hands mean you need to shoot more. You’ll get used to it.

I really like this one: Remington version but I’m sure you could do it with a Mossberg. This is the only one I’ve seen that makes me want one.... Its a clone (plus side-saddle) of the Witness Protection Shotgun the US Marshall’s carried back in the day. https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/wilson-witness-protection-870/

Yes. This is the proper mindset. Prepare for it, but recognize that the death of the perp is an unintended consequence, not the goal.

Absolutely Shane. If you can positively ID it belongs to the bad guy and you can articulate that deadly force is still appropriate - find the biggest piece of meat that you can see, center your sights, and press the trigger. This may not kill your target, but it may stop their violent actions. At the very least, have demonstrated your willingness to fight back - that alone stops many attackers. And a hit to any part of an attacker's body will certainly not improve his situation. You could reduce ability and capability by getting a peripheral hit that restricts or at least reduces movement. If the bad guy is stuck in place, you can maneuver to a superior position to finish the fight. If he loses ability because he can only use one arm to shoot, you have an absolute advantage. Griz, I couldn’t find that correlation either. Lots of supposition along with some pretty wild and unrealistic expectations of what a bullet can do and what the laws of self defense demands. This woman did very well. She did and said the right things to prepare herself and to positively influence her position before, during, and after the fight.

Ray, you are smarter than that. You know the above is bullshit for a whole bunch of reasons ranging from performance-on-demand issues to fucking bullet voodoo to bad guys that just won’t give up. Not to mention that handguns are notoriously bad at stopping fights and that most people shot with a handgun bullet die of old age. Regardless, whether the bad guys dies or lives is inconsequestial to the reason you used deadly force to begin with. That reason doesn’t change no matter the body temp of the bad guy post-engagement. Your intent was to stop. To quote Ivan Drago - “If he dies, he dies”. If you are carrying a gun for defensive purposes, be prepared to do what needs doing - anything from harsh language up to shooting him in the face - until the threat is no longer a threat. Then re-evaluate. That is it.

Correct. So, if you lived in a free state or were traveling to PA - when you strapped on your heater before going out was it with the intent/mindset to kill someone, or stop someone from trying to kill you our someone you love? Or do you just want to carry a gun to kill someone? Keeping your background in mind Ray, remember that this discussion is about the Constitutional Use of Force and not Rules of Engagement. I’m sure the difference was beaten into you in the CG.

Ray Ray, yes. I dig. Deadly Force is defined as “Force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person”. It is understood that the person against whom you are using force may be seriously killed or injured by your actions. The definition of your lawful actions sounds an awful lot like the unlawful actions of your target of deadly force don’t they? That’s because they are the same thing. You can use deadly force lawfully against someone that is using deadly against you or another unlawfully. So, what makes your application of deadly force legal and his illegal?

If you think it’s wordgames, you aren’t paying attention. It points to directly to intent and most significantly your mindset prior to the act. These two things are crucial in a trial. These are two things that can separate a self defense shooting from premeditated malicious intent or reckless action and the difference between stop and kill can make your deadly force response a reasonably necessary act and therefore justifiable. These are two things that can either mitigate or aggravate the legality of your actions. This simple but crucial distinction between a desire to stop the actions of an attacker vs the desire to kill him is what the entire “A good guy with gun is what stops bad guys with guns” movement - something I think every law abiding gun owner agrees with - is predicated on. It is what separates the wolves of this world from the sheepdogs.

Are you guys fucking with me? Seriously? Am I being Punk'd? Did you guys forget to put on your thinking caps today? Did reading comprehension fly out the window? Did we decide to think like liberals today and no one sent me the memo? Show me where I ever said to purposefully shoot to wound. Read through what I posted. Read all of it. I'll wait.... One more time for the cheap seats: As good guys - WE DO NOT SHOOT TO KILL. WE SHOOT TO STOP. Period. The end. Full stop. This has been what is taught since before I went to the Academy. It is what I was taught to teach others. It is what I teach all of my cops and all of my SWAT guys. It is the accepted reason, supported by case law as a seizure under the 4th amendment, to use deadly force. I said we shoot to stop, not to kill in direct response to your post where you said this: If you would have said "shoot to incapacitate, never to wound", or "shoot to stop, never to wound" or even "you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat" like you did in your latest post, I never would have opened my mouth. We train to hit high center mass of our human adversary, not because that is more likely to kill them, but because it is the largest piece of meat to target and it contains the most critical areas on the body. Areas that have proven to be the most effective at rapidly incapacitating/stopping a threat. When the threat is stopped/incapacitated we have then removed the threats ability to continue whatever act they were committing that authorized the use of force in the first place. This knowledge is gained from studying years of use of force applications and their effectiveness. A side effect is that shots to his area of our body also have a higher likelihood of causing death - but death is not our goal. What I did actually say was that: A) Sometimes people miss completely or they hit something other than what they are aiming at. B) Sometimes we don't have a high upper chest area to shoot at and choose to shoot at the center of another body part that is available. Finally, here is the important part: If any force used by you in defense of yourself or another successfully stops the threat from continuing actions that were likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, your legal permission to use deadly force ceases. The force used that stops the threat's actions does not matter. The force could be your mere presence as an armed good guy. It could be giving verbal commands or brandishing a firearm. It may even rise to the level of actually firing a shot. That shot may miss or hits an area of the body that is non-critical. It doesn't matter. If your interventions makes the bad guys stop then you must stop any application of deadly as well. (Note, pointing a gun at someone/covering their position is NOT deadly force and can be used to secure a bad guy as you wait for assistance) The trick here is we do not get to choose what causes the bad guy to stop. That is up to the bad guy. For some, it is the presence of armed resistance. For others, it can be merely being shot at and missed. And for others, they will fight to the death. The secret is that we need to constantly evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, and react accordingly. The above is all speaking in general terms that everyone that carries a firearm in self defense should understand. As to this specific incident, all I know is that her intervention worked and she evaluated it correctly. I don't know why the bad guy took a round to the leg. Wasn't my gun fight. Having experience reviewing use of force incidents I can think of a few reasons why he bad guy took a round in the leg, but they are educated assumptions at best. Is that all she had to shoot it? If so, good for her - that is a good mindset. Hit his leg, decrease his morale and mobility. This allows you to fix his position so you can move to a position of advantage and finish the fight. Did she purposefully aim for the leg in an attempt to wound - I would not advocate this, but as I stated earlier, it was not my gunfight. She did what she thought she had to do. Or, did she aim high chest and just hit him in the leg? As I stated in an earlier post it happens. Starting from behind the power curve she may have wanted to get on the trigger faster, she may have lost some of the finer aspects of trigger control under stress, and she may have likely been shooting over her sights so she can see her whole threat, again causing shots to go low. All three of these things are common in a defensive gunfight. This is all nice to hot-wash with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and none of it matters. What does matter is that her shot, regardless of where she hit or her intentions, stopped the bad guy without anyone else being injured. What is important to note is that this armed defender recognized that her shot ceased the assailants actions, and she no longer had the right to continue to shoot him. She appropriately stopped shooting, and began her rehearsed post engagement sequence. She is a rock star in my book.

Most rifles have that skip in the 1913 rails at the front of the receiver. Not uncommon for rails to have a skip like that too. What is that behind your ejection port? Also, what kind of stock do you have? Is it pinned all the way in? If so, that may work for a RDS not for a magnified optic, you really need a longer LOP to make it usable in all positions. In your photo, your current mount seems a bit forward from where you probably want it for best results. (It may be just a trick of the photo without the whole rifle being visible). Here is a 1-4 Steiner in the Aero Mount I linked to above on a LaRue rifle. Note the placement of the mount and where the rear of the optic is in comparison to the LOP. This gives me the right eye relief for this optic and the fixed LOP makes the rifle usable standing, sitting, or prone. This really is about as low as you can get an optic on an AR.

I’m looking to get a new 1894C 18.5” barrel .38/.357. As soon as I get an In-Stock notification, it will be mine. Looks like Marlin has finally gotten its shit together and I am hearing good things about the latest models coming out of the factory. That being said, If I could find an old one for a reasonable price, I would jump on it. But they are getting a rediculous amount of $$$ for the pre Remington 1894 rifles.

Like PB said, Why do you need QD if you aren’t using back-up irons? QD will do nothing for you except add weight, expense, and complexity. That Aero Precision 30mm SPR Mount is the answer. https://www.aeroprecisionusa.com/ultralight-30mm-spr-scope-mount Amazon has it for $76. (Edit: I just saw you linked to It as well) It is lightweight and rock solid. Best value out there, in my opinion, for a low non-QD AR mount. Thing is awesome if you want a 1.5” center height non-QD mount. Personally, I find that the 1.47”-1.5” range about as low you can get and still use in all positions. I prefer a 1.93” center height on an AR.

What height do you want the center of the optic?

You are not comprehending what I am saying. That’s probably my fault. Again, we as the Good Guys - whether it be cops or armed citizen - we all shoot to stop. The proven, and therefore preferred, method to stop a violent attacker intent on killing or seriously injuring you or someone in your care is to put rounds in the high chest until the you observe a change in behavior from your target and the violent actions of the perp cease. YES, hits to this area of the body will likely result in death. But the human body is an amazing and resilient bit of flesh and Doctors today can perform miracles treating this kind of trauma. Because hits to the chest are so effective at quickly stopping violent actions, anyone trained to carry a gun for defensive purposes trains to hit the “A” zone, upper thoracic, the “pump”, etc... This is accepted and is what we all practice on the square range. In the real world, sometimes our rounds don’t go where we want. We may be intending to hit high chest but instead our rounds hit ankle, leg, pelvis, stomach, shoulder, arm, hand, etc... These “misses” (I contend that any shot this doesn’t go where we want is a miss even if it still strikes the intended target) are a byproduct of dealing with a real world deadly force situation while having only square range training to prepare your actions. That being said, they may be misses, however, they may still work. If this peripheral shot to an unintended part of the body still stops the actions of the bad guy, then this is where the fight stops and your individual trained post engagement sequence begins. We don’t continue to shoot because “we shoot to kill” and he’s still alive. That’s murder and it’s what we are striving to prevent. Once the violent actions cease, your legal, moral, and ethical authority to use deadly force against this perp ceases. So, as I said above your intended and trained point of aim should be high chest area. But life sucks and Lady Luck is a harsh mistress. Sometimes that part of the body is not available due to the presence of cover or concealment, maybe the perp is wearing armor, or there may be innocents in the line of sight between you and your target. When this happens your point of aim must shift to the center of mass of the largest portion of the body that is visible. In other words, if all you have to shoot at is a foot, by all means shoot that foot. I may not kill the guy, but it won’t increase his morale any, and it will definitely affect his mobility making it easier to fix his position so you can finish the fight. Just keep in mind that if the foot shot, or any peripheral hit, stops the fight, you can not subsequently put two in the chest and one in the head simply because your mindset is “When I draw my pistol, it’s to kill someone.” No, you draw your pistol to stop a deadly force encounter. To change the behavior of a violent person intent on doing you or yours harm. You may succeed in stopping it without ever firing a shot. Or you may need to put one in the bad guys computer and shit him off. Or you may need to put several spread all around the body until he leaks enough hydraulic fluid that his blood pressure drops rendering him unconscious. Ultimately, the bad guy decides when the fight is over. Not you.

I can see how slipping these three items in a pocket can seem so onerous: We are not talking an aid bag or even an IFAK. You can do a lot with just these three things and a little bit of knowledge. If you add a mini compression bandage, you are even more capable.

Many self defense shooting are in the legs and ground at the feet of a target. There are two factors at play here. One is that the person shooting in defense is shooting early on the drawstroke before the weapon is fully presented. The muzzle is pointed low on the body of their target as they attempt to bring the gun to face level and assurance what they think is a proper shooting stance. The immediacy of the event causes them to, understandably, start pressing the trigger early - while the muzzle is still sweeping up from the draw. Second is that the person shooting in self defense is typically shooting over the sights in an attempt to see their entire threat. This causes shots to go lower than intended.

I am an expert and I do understand the quickness with which violence occurs and the urgency of deploying a firearm in a DPF confrontation. I carry a gun every day and teach others to do the same . A large part of what I teach my people are the the intricacies of the proper use of force and the mindset to apply it correctly to whatever scenario you find yourself in. Additionally - here is the important part - I teach them how to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the force you used to make sure it stays reasonable and appropriate to the task at hand. Read what I said. I never said you should shoot to hurt. Read what I said - “Shoot to stop”. “I attempted to stop him” is exactly what works in court. This is what defenders do. “I attempted to kill him” also works in court, if you want to be found guilty. This is what murderers do. Our goal is never to kill anyone. It is to stop the immediate or imminent violent actions of a perpetrator. Full stop. Period. The end. Death may be the only way to stop them. Death may follow a short time after you stop them. But, death is not the intended end state. It is merely a byproduct of your options. The direct actions of another that have risen to the level where they may kill or seriously injure me, or someone in my care in the immediate future is what permits me to use deadly force in defense of myself or others. Keep in mind, there is more than one kind of stop - primarily we talk about two: • Psychological stops • Physiological stops. Physiological stops are further broken down into: • Timers - you injured them but they are still alive. They may die in 30 seconds or they may live another 20 years • Switches - this is a CNS got where they literally turn off. Some nerve and tendon hits that instantly remove the ability to move a body part can also be switches. Scenario - I observe someone committing an act that legally, morally, and ethically permits me to use deadly force to stop them. I draw my pistol and fire one shot. Outcome 1: I miss, but it’s enough to make the perp stop what they are doing and follow my commands to the point I can control them until police/backup arrive. The perp is no longer putting anyone in immediate or imminent danger. Can I continue to shoot them until they are dead? Outcome 2: This time my shot hits them the the heart and severs the spine. The perp is instantly killed and slumps to the ground. This is a physiological stop with a switch. I just turned the guy off. While it is a known possible and acceptable outcome of my intervention, it is not the goal of my use of force. Outcome 3: This time my shot hits him in the belly and the victim is able to scramble away. The perp doesn’t die immediately -This is a physiological stop of the timer variety. Again, my intervention was enough to make him stop his violent actions to where the target of his attack is now safe. Can I keep shooting simply because the perp is still alive? Of course not - that would be murder. Now, if he stops obeying my commands and his actions return to the the level of permitting deadly force, then yes, I am permitted to intervene again. Yes, there are times where you are technically shooting to kill. For example a hostage situation where you are going for the headshot. The mindset however is not to take a kill shot. It is a calculated physiological stop (switch) designed to reduce the risk to another. Not a conscious decision to just kill someone out of hand.

Yes, I do.

Throw it over the berm! Empty mag in the gun?