Electric Vehicle Update for February 26, 2014: Part 2

Tags

electric car, electric cars, Fisker Automotive, President Obama

The first part of this two-part series was posted on February 26, and elicited some strong commentary, as usual.  There are certainly EV fans out there, at least some of whom are very satisfied with their EVs and ready to defend them.  Good for them.  Unfortunately, EVs are still nowhere near ready for prime time for most of the public, and they’re still soaking up taxpayer dollars rather than standing on their own four wheels.

Why would any automaker design, build and market a car upon which it loses money with every vehicle that rolls out of the factory, a factory it has had to repeatedly close due to poor sales.  Some vehicles generate considerable prestige for a manufacturer, boosting the overall brand.  Others represent a point of institutional pride, demonstrating technological wizardry or serving as a technology demonstrator, but virtually none of these vehicles are ever approved for production.  Normally, the only vehicles sent to the assembly line are those with which a manufacturer can make a substantial and sustained profit.

The only alternative explanation for the existence of unprofitable, poorly selling vehicles is—particularly in the era of Obama—gangster government.  And despite the spectacular failure of virtually every one of its green/global warming/EV/solar/wind initiatives, the Obama Administration–enlightened beings all–never learns and never stops scheming for ways to force the public to do what they believe the pubilc is too stupid to know is good for them.  Fox News has the story: 

Despite the looming bankruptcy of electric carmaker Fisker Automotive, and disappointing sales of electric vehicles across the country,  the Obama administration has harnessed  some of the country’s top scientists, engineers, economists and auto experts to push electric car use deeper into the fabric of American society.

Among the ideas being considered:  new and bigger consumer subsidies for electric-car purchases, stiffer gasoline or carbon taxes, more federal subsidies for electric-car research, more subsidies for public-access battery-charging stations, and even broad, publicly-funded ad campaigns extolling the virtues of cars that the public currently seems disinterested in buying.

Those possibilities, and more, have been rolled out in an 80-page interim report of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences which aims to put intellectual heft, as well as vast amounts of data-collection, behind a U.S. Department of Energy goal of producing  — and selling –electric cars that are “as affordable and convenient for American families as gasoline powered cars” — by 2022.

In other words, despite the fact that electric cars have so far been largely a flop, the administration is still looking for ways — backed by government funding and tax policy — to produce even more of them, and rewire America. And in some critical ways, as the interim study points out, it still isn’t known whether the electric car idea makes any sense.

Of course.  But that won’t stop President Obama from choosing winners and losers, and as Mitt Romney noted, almost always losers.

Nonetheless, the study asserts that ‘The electric vehicle offers many promises — increasing U.S. energy security by reducing petroleum dependence … stimulating long-term economic growth through the development of new technologies and industries, and improving public health by improving local air quality.’ It also helps by ‘contributing to climate-change initiatives by decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions’ a course that the Obama administration has strongly committed to through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The 2014 report will cherry-pick the policies referenced in the interim document and come up with the ‘best ways to revise and improve them,’ according to last month’s study. It will also take on additional economic and technological ‘barriers’ to PEVs (plug-in electrical vehicles) deployment,’ as the document drily describes it, presumably describing the ways to overcome them in significantly more detail.

Unsurprisingly, one of the biggest problems is cost:

As the National Academy studies notes, one obvious reason is the impressive price difference between all-electric and hybrid autos and the gasoline-powered cars that the vast majority of Americans continue to buy — despite the $7,500 subsidies offered by the Obama administration.

Using a 2013 Ford model as a basis for comparison, the report notes that the price difference between the plug-in version and the conventional Ford Fusion SE amounts to about $12,000.

Regular readers will recognize other issues:

There are plenty of other reasons why Americans are not wild about electric cars. Among other things, the interim study notes that Americans don’t know much about them, and what they do know they don’t like, starting with their short — less than 100 miles — driving ranges on one electrical charge; lack of widely accessible charging stations, absence of non-specialized repair facilities, lack of standardized plugs, and the frustrating amount of time it can take to fill up on electricity: half an hour even at rare and expensive fast charging stations.

And then there is the time it can take even to buy one, which the report says includes the time it might take for a prospective buyer to inspect his residence to examine the possibility of buying and installing a moderately-fast charger to go with his new auto purchase.

As the report notes, ‘A process that includes inspecting, costing, permitting and installing can take days or even weeks and add time, multiple cost factors, and uncertainty to the car-buying process.

Despite all of those very practical impediments, however, the interim study comes up with plenty of potential solutions — mostly in the form of additional government programs of one kind or another.

To overcome continuing public ignorance of electric cars, the authors suggest ‘public service announcements that showcase current PEV owners’ and ‘describe the benefits of PEV ownership.’ At the same time, the document declares that ‘few data on customer perceptions, attitudes and behavior regarding PEVs are available,’ though the collective authorship believes that ‘further research could help to determine how to structure effective programs and policies.

What would any Obama program be without a healthy dose of extortion and coercion and the wasting of taxpayer dollars to little or no ethical, legitimate purpose? 

To deal with those still-intimidating higher prices, the study authors suggest that the federal government ‘continue to provide incentives’ such as purchase subsidies as well as slap on further disincentives to conventional auto sales, such as ‘increasing taxes on motor fuels or by instituting a broad-based carbon tax.”

Another thing that consumers don’t seem to like about electrical vehicles — their short driving range — could also be a plus, the study indicates, since 70 percent of Americans average less than 40 miles of travel per day in their cars, and more than 90 percent travel less than 90 miles.

But, in fact, whether Americans are willing to accept those limitations — on their non-average travel is something the study authors don’t know. As they put it, “few data on customer perceptions, attitudes, and behavior regarding PEVs are publicly available, although some studies have examined those topics, further research could help to determine how to structure effective programs and policies.

Indeed, the document adds, “Little research has been conducted to determine which government policies concerning PEVs are the most successful and why.”

The remainder of the article points out that installing home fast chargers—and “fast” is a relative term where EVs are concerned—is not only expensive; it’s easily as much as $2000—and often very time-consuming because permits, inspections, etc. are involved.  In addition, there is little or no charging infrastructure anywhere, and the fastest chargers are still many times slower than filling a car with gas while offering vastly inferior range.

And then, how fast is fast? The latest state-of-the-art stations take about a half-hour to put the equivalent of 100 to 150 miles of charge in an electric car. An ordinary gasoline pump might take, say, three to five minutes to put the equivalent of 450 miles range in a conventional auto, making it about 18 times as efficient.

‘Electrical ‘gas stations’ would have to  be as big as Walmart parking lots to handling all the cars waiting their turn to juice up,’ says Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington think tank that is sympathetic to the benefits of more traditional U.S. energy sources.

The study is available here.  

Technology To The Rescue!  What about the dramatic advances in technology Mr. Obama is always talking about?  Won’t they make EVs suddenly viable?  Not so much.  A GM executive claims GM is working on an EV that retails for about $30,000 (only $30,000?) and gets 200 miles per charge.  Great—or not… 

Vice President of Global Product Development Doug Parks wouldn’t say when or if such a car will be built, however. [skip]

“The 200-mile car would cost about the same as the current Volt, and it would match the range and be far cheaper than Tesla Motors’ $71,000, all-electric Model S. The Model S can go up to 265 miles on a single charge.

A moderately priced electric car with a 200-mile range would make electric cars more appealing to Americans, solving the two chief complaints about such cars: Anxiety over running out of power and high price, said Tom Libby, lead North American analyst for the Polk automotive research firm.

‘That would be a huge step forward, no question,’ he said.

Indeed it would.  So how is GM doing in that noble quest?

The 200-mile car won’t be the next-generation Volt. Speaking at a Monday event to show off GM’s expanded battery laboratory at its technical center in Warren, a suburb north of Detroit, Parks said that GM engineers are now working on a new Volt, which will go a little farther on electricity than the current model and cost a little less. He wouldn’t say when it will arrive in showrooms or how much it will cost.

And therein, gentle readers, is the problem.  Lithium-ion battery technology is such that there are no stunning leaps in capacity and range on the horizon.  And notice that GM’s new, technologically advanced project will merely “go a little farther on electricity than the current model and cost a little less.”  Until EVs are very close to conventional vehicles in every respect—particularly price–and have comparable range, they will never be economically viable.  And by price, I mean GM won’t have to rely on a $7500 taxpayer subsidy and a $5000 price cut that puts GM even more deeply in the hole for each vehicle sold.  Even with those subsidies, the Chevy Volt is still far more expensive than most of it’s conventional competitors.

Unlimited Power—Or Not? The widespread proliferation of EVs would be a boon in every way, right?  Not so fast.  The MIT Technology Review cautions that EVs aren’t necessarily good for the power grid:

Last year in the United States, only about 50,000 electric cars were sold. And researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have calculated that the grid has enough excess capacity to support over 150 million battery-powered cars, or about 75 percent of the cars, pickups, and SUVs on the road in the United States. But there’s a catch. While power plants and transmission lines have excess capacity, things can get tight when it comes to distributing power to individual neighborhoods. And this is especially the case since electric vehicle sales aren’t evenly distributed. In California, for example, they’re taking off in Silicon Valley and places such as Long Beach and Santa Monica.

Electric cars being sold today can draw two to five times more power when they’re charging than electric cars that came on the market just a couple of years ago. But the impact of charging one depends on where it is on the grid and how it is charged. They don’t pose a problem if they’re charged slowly at conventional 110 volt outlets. And public fast-charging stations don’t impact the grid much because they are part of commercial grids that have transformers and other equipment sized to accommodate large loads.

The trouble arises when electric car owners install dedicated electric vehicle charging circuits. In most parts of California, charging an electric car at one of those is the equivalent of adding one house to the grid, which can be a significant additional burden, since a typical neighborhood circuit has only five to 10 houses. In San Francisco, where the weather is cool and air conditioning is rarely used, the peak demand of a house is much lower than in the hotter parts of California. As a result, the local grid is sized for a much smaller load. A house in San Francisco might only draw two kilowatts of power at times of peak demand, according to Pacific Gas & Electric. In comparison, a new electric vehicle on a dedicated circuit could draw 6.6 kilowatts—and up to 20 kilowatts in the case of an optional home fast charger for a Tesla Model S.

In addition, the wiring of individual homes may or may not be sufficiently robust to accommodate even contemporary fast chargers.  In that case, substantial—and expensive—rewiring will be required, potentially pushing the cost of fast charger installation beyond $2000 and more.

These issues don’t make EVs impossible, but they do complicate their use and spread, and of course, any upgrades made by power companies are passed on to consumers, not individual EV users.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, and an EV can end up costing far more than one might initially calculate.  in fact, for many users, an EV may never recoup the premium in purchase price.

The Beautiful but defunct Fisker Karma
credit: 333.idontgetit.us

Winners and Losers:  Those that believe in the free market believe that government should never be involved in picking winners and losers.  This belief has been vindicated over and over by Mr. Obama, who has proved particularly adept at picking losers.  Fisker is a good case in point.  

The bankruptcy of Fisker Automotive could end up costing the U.S. government much more than the $168 million it loaned to the maker of the Karma plug-in hybrid sports car.

According to its bankruptcy filing on Friday, Fisker owns tax breaks worth $320 million.

Fisker’s bankruptcy papers said the Southern California-based company plans to sell its automotive operations to a business affiliated with Hong Kong tycoon Richard Li, but it will hold on to the tax breaks after it emerges from bankruptcy.

Fisker piled up some $800 million in net operating losses in recent years, which have a future cash benefit worth approximately $320 million, according to the bankruptcy filing.

That lost tax revenue would add to taxpayers’ pain from Fisker’s failure.

Hotair.com explains:  

On Friday, I mentioned that it seems that the odyssey of fail that was the Obama administration’s commitment to ‘investing’ in Fisker Automotive was finally drawing to a merciful close, as the Department of Energy managed to (kind of shadily?) auction off the down-and-out company to some Chinese investors. With the deal, Americans taxpayers would only be taking a net hit of an oh-so-trifling $130 million or so. No big deal, right?

Wrong.

The Department of Energy originally extended Fisker a $529 million line of credit back in the 2009 stimulus effort, but cut off the already ailing Fisker in 2011 after having dished out only about $190 million. Including the recent auction, the DOE has managed to recover only about $53 million of that loan, which is where the number of the $130 million for which taxpayers will be on the hook came from — except that that specific loan guarantee apparently wasn’t the only tax break of which Fisker was one of the Obama administration’s anointed beneficiaries.

In this particular green debacle, Fisker managed to sell a total of 2000 cars, losing at least $35,000 on each vehicle.   This should hardly be surprising.  Mr. Obama’s green dogma—and his determination to reward donors and supporters–removed any sense of caution or rationality in handing out billions in taxpayer cash.  Startup auto companies have an almost perfect record of spectacularly failing; building cars profitably is fiendishly difficult.  Building cars with unproven, unreliable technology for a tiny, niche market, particularly when there is an insufficient market of potential buyers, is a perfect recipe for failure.  Loaning taxpayer money to such a venture is corruption, lunacy or both.

And so it goes…

Connecticut: The Coming Storm

Tags

Connecticut, law enforcement, police officers, State Police

credit: deadliestwarrior.wikia.com

Friday, June 27^th, 2014, 0-dark-thiry:  The politicians have made their decision.  By a twist of fate–your file simply happened to be on the top of the stack for no particular reason–you’ll be the first example.  A state police SWAT team pull to the curb in front of your home, leap from their van and rush to your front door.  Two black-clad men pull back a ram and swing it toward your front door, aiming just above the knob, while the rest of the team waits anxiously, their automatic weapons charged and off safe.  Two hope they’ll get the opportunity to shoot.  At least one wants to manufacture the opportunity.

You’ve made two major mistakes; they will cost your life and destroy your family:  you live in a blue state where the governor and legislature have no respect for the Constitution and the lives and liberty of citizens, and you were foolish enough to obey the law.

Starting awake from a sound sleep by the explosion of your door being smashed open and the heavy stomping of booted feet, you stumble down the stairs and into the hallway.  As you turn toward the sounds, you’re blinded by multiple bright lights and hear many people screaming at you, but their words are unintelligible.  You raise your hands to shield your eyes, but you have your cell phone in your right hand.  As soon as it comes into view, you’re overwhelmed by a tidal wave of explosive sounds and feel the first bullets rip into your body.  There are stars, so many stars, winking and suddenly, everything goes silent and black and your last conscious thought is a feeling of falling.

The SWAT team, surprised when you suddenly appeared only five feet from them, screamed conflicting commands at you.  When you raised your hands and one of them saw something dark in your right hand, he jerked back the trigger of his MP5 submachine gun and didn’t let go until the weapon was empty.  Seeing him fire, four more did the same.  Of the 137 rounds five of the team initially fired, only 18 actually hit you, but it was enough.  The rest shredded your home from floor to ceiling and wall to wall.  Six nearby homes were hit, as were four cars.  As you lay dying, your heart beating ever more slowly and weakly, you were spared the horror of your wife’s death.

As she descended the stairs, she saw you hit, blood spurting everywhere, falling to the floor, she screamed loud and long and ran down the steps.  When she suddenly leapt into the hallway from the staircase, the nearest officer, who had been staring in shock at your bleeding body, and most of all, at the cell phone near your right hand, was startled.  One of only two who had not completely emptied his magazine, he emptied it into her.  The rest tried, but with one other exception, their guns were empty, and they frantically and impotently jerked their triggers.  The other exception managed to fire the remaining six rounds in his weapon.  Of the final 13 rounds fired, eleven hit your wife, five in the chest, three in the head.  She was dead before her body fell onto yours, the sickening thump of her head on the hardwood floor echoing in the sudden silence and roiling gun smoke.

That was when they heard screaming upstairs, and gathering their courage and slamming fresh magazines into their guns, rushed upstairs, breaking into your 7-year old daughter’s bedroom, to find her lying in a widening pool of blood on her tiny bed.  One of the officers tripped over his own feet as he was charging into the house and triggered nearly a full magazine through the ceiling–into her bedroom and through her bed.  One of his fellow officers caught three rounds on his bullet resistant vest, but that will be covered up for years.  Your daughter will survive.  She’ll be in a medically induced coma for two weeks, and when she awakens, she’ll be informed she’s an orphan, a paraplegic orphan with a single lung.

An investigation of the State Police SWAT team by the State Police done within a month of the murders will find the State Police blameless, and will proclaim them heroic paragons of SWAT virtue.

Your sister’s family gladly takes your daughter in, and after two years, years in which the State Attorney General, the Governor, many politicians and the news media depict you, your wife, and even your daughter as murderous domestic terrorists, a jury finally awards your daughter 30 million dollars.  She’ll need every penny to support her the remainder of her shortened life.  Unfortunately, a judge sympathetic to the state reduces the award to seven million dollars.  The AG, Governor and his advisors, angry and vindictive, get authorization from a corrupt and cooperative judge to steal your daughter from your sister’s family and put her in a group foster home run by people who do it for the substantial money the state pays.  The state also seizes the 7 million dollars for reimbursement for taking care of your daughter.  The Speaker of the State House of Representatives pronounces it a just and fitting end for a family of domestic terrorists and swears to bring justice to all domestic terrorists.

Why were the police there?  You tried to obey the law and register an AR-15 you bought.  Unfortunately, you missed the deadline by two days, so the state knew you had the rifle and four magazines.  What they didn’t know was that you bought the gun as a birthday present for your adult son who lives in Montana.  The gun and magazines were in Montana only a week after you bought it.  The state police attacked your home because they thought you had an “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazines,” all of which had been in Montana for months.  They were scared to death of anyone with an “assault weapon,” so they sent a SWAT team.

Documents eventually made public during the civil suit will reveal that the state police made no attempt to verify that you still owned the weapon.  They will reveal that a corrupt and cooperative judge–guess who?–signed hundreds of blank search warrants.  They will also reveal that only 31% of local police departments and sheriff’s offices cooperated with the State Police; 69% refused to violate the Constitution.  Not that any of that means anything to you.  You screwed up and you’re dead.  Your daughter will come to wish she had died that night as well.

Far-out fiction?  The decision about which I spoke is being made in Connecticut as you read this article.  Connecticut’s most recent gun restrictions signed into law by Governor Dan Malloy (D) include the requirement that anyone with magazines of greater than 10 round capacity must register them, and all “assault weapons,” with the state no later than January 1, 2014.  Under many circumstances, violation of these laws is a felony.

As Bob Owens at Bearing Arms reports, most Connecticut residents disobeyed their legislative betters: 

Only 50,000 firearms and 38,000 magazines were registered. Perhaps another 350,000 firearms belong to those who refused to register their arms. Nearly 2 million magazines are thought to remain unregistered.

These unregistered firearms and magazines are thought to belong to 80,000-100,000 gun owners who view the law as a blatantly unconstitutional infringement upon the very spirit of the Second Amendment, and a prelude to confiscation.

But what about people who did their best to obey the law?  Suckers!

Those most obviously in danger of being arrested at this time are 106 rifle owners and and 108 magazine owners who tried to register their arms, too late. The government knows exactly who they are through their botched registrations, and sent them letters giving them options on how to surrender their arms and magazines.

But the police wouldn’t do that!  Yes they would, at least enough of them to fire a second shot heard around the world.  Let’s briefly examine what the police are sworn to do and how they think.

All police officers swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction.  They are members of the executive branch of government, and like the President or the Governors of the several states, are  responsible for seeing that the laws are faithfully enforced.  There are always two potentially exclusive principals at play in law enforcement:  officers are expected to fairly and uniformly enforce the law, yet may lawfully refuse illegal orders and may refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Practically, this rarely becomes an imminent conflict.  Officers are given a great deal of discretion, and usually don’t enforce ridiculous, unconstitutional laws.  Almost always, no one says a word about it.  This is so because thoughtful, professional officers know that they are the pointy end of the spear.  They know that the only reason our system works–and they survive–is because most people respect the law and are willing to obey it most of the time.  Were that not true, police officers wouldn’t last a day.  The police need the respect and willing cooperation of the public, and smart cops understand this.

Legislators, on the other hand, often care about nothing but seizing and maintaining power.  Too many come to see themselves not as public servants hired temporarily to do the people’s business, but as the intellectual and moral superiors of the people, divinely chosen–by themselves; they recognize no higher power–to tell the people what to think, what to say, what to own and how to behave.  They do not react well to the people thinking for themselves or refusing to obey.  They forget–if they ever knew–that no rational legislator passes a law they know will not be obeyed, because when they do, and when people ignore them, a difficult choice is forced upon them.  Take it and back down from a law they should never have written in the first place, or attack and show those peasants who’s boss.  Punish them for daring to challenge their betters.

And who are the enforcers for the elite legislative class?  The police.

Police officers must always consider three factors in their law enforcement decisions:

(1) Maintaining the rule of law.  They do this by upholding the Constitution, fairly enforcing the laws that actually have to do with public safety while honoring the rights of all.

(2) Upholding the social contract.  Police officers are given their powers by the people to deal with truly dangerous and harmful people and situations.  People are willing to respect and obey the police as long as they do not breach the social contract by becoming not even-handed enforcers of laws that actually protect the public and make civilized society possible, but partisan enforcers for a lawless government.

(3) Doing what is reasonably necessary to do their jobs honestly and honorably.

Smart police supervisors and executives also know they should never give an order that will not be obeyed.  Even so, will the police violate the Constitution, break the social contract, act dishonestly and dishonorably in doing their jobs?  Many will.  Refusal might mean the loss of career and pension, discipline, even prosecution.  Some buy into the idea that they are the masters of the people, not their servants.  Others will go along to get along.  Some will honestly, but wrongfully, believe their duty is to follow orders regardless.  But enough will do it.

The decision facing Connecticut legislators, the Attorney General and the Governor is stark: do they back down, refuse to actively pursue gun owners made instant felons by their unconstitutional laws, or do they suppress the peasants,  perhaps even kill a few to make the point?  That would never happen?  Consider the Jose Guerena case, and the case of Andrew Lee Scott.  Consider this from The Examiner:  

A journalist in Connecticut reports that the highly restrictive and punitive gun control laws the state passed last year carry an ominous threat for citizens.

Those who missed the deadline to register their ‘assault weapons’ and high capacity magazines, which have been outlawed, will be treated as criminals although they may have attempted to obey the law but just missed the deadline.

Ed Jacovino of The Journal Inquirer further stated that Michael P, Lawler, a top aide to Gov. Dannel Malloy, contends that the state will punish those who missed the registration deadline whether they intended to or not.

According to Jacovino: ‘And while the state won’t immediately prosecute those who missed the deadline, it isn’t ignoring that information, either.  The rifle and magazine declarations will be included in information given to police responding to  a certain address.  ‘This would be a factor in deciding how to respond to different situations,’ Lawlor says.’

Read that statement closely.  Lawlor is saying that if a citizen calls the police to report a crime in progress, officers will be able to see whether or not the person reporting the crime has registered their assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and will approach the emergency call accordingly.

Honest officers trying to do their jobs honorably would carefully consider the three aforementioned factors.  They would realize that these laws are clearly unconstitutional and will, sooner rather than later, be ruled so.  They would understand that pursuing honest citizens who refuse to obey an unconstitutional law is a gross and unforgivable violation of the social contract, and such violations will cause breaches that will never be healed.  Trust lost is never regained.  Particularly, arresting–even killing, and some will die–people who actually tried to obey even an unconstitutional law but missed a deadline by a day or two is particularly dishonorable, even evil.  To do their jobs honestly and honorably, they would quietly refuse to enforce those laws.  Their supervisors and administrators, usually understanding of the three factors, would say nothing and do nothing.

Because the mere possession of magazines and AR-15-like weapons is not a crime if they are registered, police officers have no probable cause to investigate people for mere possession of such things.  How can any officer, by merely looking, tell if a magazine holds 10 or 11 rounds?  How can they tell if a magazine or a rifle have been registered?  To be forced to tear apart magazines and to examine and investigate every rifle they see exceeds an officer’s powers and reduces them to corrupt, thuggish operatives of a police state demanding to see anyone’s papers at whim.  Were this lawful, were this truly a significant law enforcement priority, why not simply station State Troopers at every shooting range as a gatekeeper? Of course, actual criminals tend not to frequent shooting ranges, but one has to have priorities.

If in the course of their normal duties they find themselves in a situation where they have genuine–not manufactured–probable cause to investigate further, they might need to enforce those particular laws, particularly if they’re dealing with real criminals rather than honest citizens criminalized by a corrupt legislature, but other than that, professionals would leave it alone.  There are far more pressing issues that the public will support and recognize as clearly upholding the social contract.

And this will work–it does every day–if the police are left to their own devices.  But as the Examiner noted, that may not be the case.  This is an issue about which the police are very much aware, and honest officers worried. Recently, a woman whose husband received a threatening letter called the State Police and spoke with Lt. J. Paul Vance, who is apparently the head of public information for the State Police.  Take this link to hear her recording of their conversation.  

Lt. J. Paul Vance
credit: starkravingviking.blogspot.com

While the woman is somewhat naïve regarding these issues, she is asking valid questions, particularly, if ordered to go to the homes of honest citizens and seize their firearms and accessories, will the State Police do it?  Will they put themselves and the citizens they serve in deadly danger to enforce unconstitutional laws?  Will they put honest citizens in situations where officers will feel compelled to kill them?

As the call goes on, Lt. Vance becomes upset and defensive, very reluctant to admit that the police are even considering such things, saying, among other things:

“I don’t want to talk about the Constitution at all–at all.” 

“It sounds like you’re anti-American and anti-law.”

“I’m the master.”

He repeatedly tells her to speak with her attorney and says he would never come to her home, because it’s not his job (of course not; he’s an administrator).  She corrects him, noting that lower ranking officers would do it, but he wants to avoid admitting that, and pretends that the police are automatons with no control over which laws to enforce.  He also pretends not to understand that police officers coming to the homes of the law abiding to seize their weapons are in any unusual danger, nor will he admit that their actions would put citizens in danger.  He knows better; any competent police officer knows better.

Anyone listening to Lt. Vance should come away with the understanding that the State Police certainly will send SWAT teams to the homes of citizens, and will, if they deem it necessary, kill them over the number of rounds their magazines are capable of holding and the appearance of their rifles.  They will kill people to please blood-thirsty politicians.

Some local agencies–particularly sheriff’s departments, because sheriffs are elected–will refuse to participate, but many will.  Police officers on the coasts are different than those in flyover country.  They are generally more anti-gun.  The State Police absolutely will, and few, if any, will have any qualms about it.  In law enforcement circles, state police officers are known to be rigid and inflexible.  Because they generally have no ties to a particular community, many quickly develop an “us-against-them” mentality.  Their training and rank structure and daily relationships also tend to condition them to think themselves superior to local officers, and to be much more militaristic than other law enforcement agencies.

Have no doubt.  If Connecticut politicians decide to punish the peasants, the State Police SWAT teams will raid the homes of the innocent.  People will die.  The social contract will be irretrievably broken, and the police–and politicians–will be seen as, and treated as, the enemies of Americans.  They will have earned it.

If Connecticut’s legislators have any common sense, any honor, any decency, they will, at the very least, leave this alone and let this ultimately be decided by the courts.  If they’re actually smart, they’ll repeal these unconstitutional laws before lives are lost.

Any bets on which path they’ll take?

Gun Ownership, A Rationale, Part 6: Cartridges and Gun Choice

In this installment of the seven part series (the first five installments may be found here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5), I’ll explore the basics of cartridge and gun choice, and add a few interesting additional tidbits.  As we embark on the two final articles, keep in mind that there is no such thing as the perfect gun or cartridge, a universally wonderful combination that works equally well for everyone.  While my daily carry gun is a Glock 26 embellished with a few helpful accessories, before that gun was invented, I carried a variety of handguns, including a Glock 19, A Browning BDA .380, a S&W Model 59 (much modified), A Colt Commander, and even a Colt Detective Special, to name a few.  Even today I occasionally carry a S&W Bodyguard .380.

CARTRIDGE CHOICE:

Cartridge choices for handguns are relatively simple.  For revolvers, the .38 Special and .357 Magnum predominate.  Federal has recently introduced a .327 Magnum cartridge which produces muzzle energy greater than the 9mm but less than the .40 S&W (in the area of 430 FP), but it remains to be seen if it captures a lasting place in the American cartridge catalogue.  One can also obtain revolvers in .44 Special, .44 Magnum and larger, much more powerful, specialized cartridges most commonly used for hunting, but for most people choosing a revolver, the choice is .38 Special or .357 Magnum.  The .357 is nothing more than a .38 special with a slightly longer case which allows more powder, greater bullet velocity, and therefore, more power.

How much more velocity and power?  Remington provides a handy means to compare such things with their ammunition.  Bullet velocity is commonly measured at the muzzle, 50 and 100 yards for handgun ammunition, and is expressed in feet per second (FPS).  Bullet energy is also measured at those distance points and is expressed in foot pounds (FP).  Bullets are weighed in grains.  I’ve compiled a table using Remington’s data for the six most popular handgun cartridges.  Only the .38 SP and the .357 Magnum are purpose-designed revolver cartridges.

Common Handgun Ammunition Comparison Table

What do these numbers mean?  Generally speaking, the heavier the bullet, and the faster it can be propelled, the better.  This combination will generally result in the greatest amount of energy, which generally results in the greatest potential stopping power.  However, keep in mind that only rifle ammunition has what might be considered true “stopping power,” and even that is subject to various caveats.  The idea that there is such a thing–particularly in common handgun ammunition–as a bullet that will immediately end a deadly threat with a single impact is an iffy proposition.  Much depends upon bullet placement.  All handgun ammunition is a compromise between potential effectiveness and the ability to carry a defensive weapon at all as rifles tend to be hard to carry and particularly to conceal.

I’ve included the 50 and 100 yard figures primarily as a means of comparison for the technically minded.  What really matters is muzzle velocity and energy because very few gunfights take place beyond seven yards (most are much closer, in the area of 7 feet or even less).  At such distances, very little—if any–velocity and energy is lost from the figures obtained at the muzzle.

Notice that the muzzle energy figures for the 9mm and the .45 ACP are similar but their velocity figures are quite different.  The 9mm obviously produces its energy through greater speed while the .45 does it via its much greater bullet weight.  At the same time, the .357 Magnum produces much greater muzzle energy and velocity which might lead us to believe that it is far more effective than the 9mm or the .45, yet real world experience suggests that the .45 is the superior stopper among the three.  I’ll be writing an article in the future on bullet stopping power, drawing on several of the best sources of the last few decades.  The point is that when it comes to stopping power with handguns, there is far more involved than just bullet weight, muzzle energy and velocity, though they are a useful means of comparison.

Smaller revolvers like the Ruger LCR are chambered only in .38 special (there is a .357 model, the KLCR-357 which is slightly larger and more solidly built), and while any revolver chambered for .357 magnum will also fire .38 special ammunition, the opposite is not true.

NOTE:  .38 special ammunition may be safely fired in revolvers chambered for .357 magnum, but .357 magnum may not safely be fired in revolvers chambered for .38 special ammunition.  Thankfully, the cylinders of .38 special revolvers are generally too short to chamber .357, but one should never fire ammunition other than than specified by the manufacturer in any weapon.

It would be wise to consider .38 special to be the smallest cartridge appropriate for self defense in revolvers.  Smaller calibers are available, but there is no advantage in size or otherwise in such weapons.  Revolvers chambered for .357 magnum and larger calibers are themselves larger and heavier, often much larger and heavier, than smaller, short barreled revolvers chambered in .38 special.

Common cartridge choices for semiautos are somewhat more numerous: .380 ACP, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP predominate.  Again, there are a variety of other available cartridges, but these are the primary four.  Of the four, the .40 S&W is the most recent, having been developed from the 10mm cartridge as a shorter cartridge with less brutal recoil characteristics.  It does approximate the performance of some .45 ACP ammunition with lighter bullet weights, while being physically small enough to use the same frames and slides as guns chambered in 9mm.  Generally speaking, none of these cartridges is interchangeable.  Particularly with semiautos, one should load and fire only those cartridges for which a given handgun was designed.  In this genre, the .380 is generally considered the smallest cartridge effective for self defense.  Handguns chambered for it, such as the polymer Ruger LCP, can be very small and light indeed, but as with very small and light revolvers, tend to have mediocre sights and triggers and because of their very light weight and small size, tend to impart considerably more recoil energy to the shooter.  The muzzle flash and report of these weapons is also prodigious.  This often results in equally mediocre accuracy.

Cartridges are commonly named for their bullet diameter and developer, or to clearly differentiate them from similar cartridges.  The .357 Magnum, for instance, fires a bullet whose diameter is 357/1000 of an inch, and the “magnum” designation is intended to denote a more powerful version of the .38 Special, which fires a bullet of the same diameter.  The .357 gains its extra power from a slightly longer case, which allows slightly more powder.  The .40 S&W fires a bullet of 400/1000 inch diameter, and major development work was done by Smith and Wesson.  It is essentially a development of the 10mm cartridge, but the case is slightly shorter to allow smaller framed weapons to fire it with less recoil.  Again, the .40 S&W designation clearly differentiates it from 10mm ammunition, though both fire bullets of essentially the same diameter.  While it is possible to fire .40 S&W ammunition in a handgun chambered for 10mm, the opposite is not true, and again, it is always best to fire only that ammunition for which a gun is specifically chambered, particularly with semiautos.

BROAD AMMUNITION GENERALIZATIONS: 

For self defense, only jacketed hollow points should be used.  Hollow points have the greatest likelihood of expending more of their energy within a target–thus having the maximum stopping effect–and the least likelihood of over-penetration and ricochet as they will tend to “mushroom” or fragment on impact with solid objects.  Full metal jacket, or “hardball” ammunition–lead bullets fully encased with copper and with rounded noses–are military issue due to international treaties and because of the military need for greater penetration of cover.

These are common 9mm cartridges.  From right to left, is a Remington full metal jacket (FMJ) cartridge, a Remington jacketed hollow point (JHP) cartridge, and a more recent development, a Hornady “Critical Defense” cartridge.  The red polymer insert in the hollowpoint cavity is designed to prevent clothing fibers from filling the cavity and preventing fully expansion of the bullet.

In the military context, it is often better to wound than to kill an enemy.  A wounded enemy takes three people out of the fight: the wounded soldier and two of his comrades to carry him.  FMJ ammunition is entirely appropriate–and much cheaper–for practice, but not for daily carry.

NOTE: Some of our more recent enemies do not share our determination to leave no man behind on the battlefield.  This may eventually factor into ammunition design for our military.  It seems rather silly to fret over the potential damage done to an enemy by a hollow point pistol or rifle bullet when we’re simultaneously shooting them with 30mm cannon rounds from attack helicopters or missiles launched from drones that actually tear them limb from limb or reduce them to atoms.

On February 17, 2013, I published an article titled “Billions And Billions Of Bullets,” dealing with the truly extraordinary numbers of cartridges being published by various agencies of the Federal Government, agencies like the Social Security Administration one might think would have no need for such purchases.  The overwhelming majority of handgun cartridges being purchased are hollow points.  As I explained in that article, hollow point ammunition is duty ammunition, ammunition intended for serious, deadly purposes, not training ammunition.  Training/practice ammunition is quite a different matter.

Practice ammunition, whether with lead bullets or jacketed bullets, generally does not use hollow point bullets, and is therefore generally substantially cheaper than carry/duty ammo, however, it is often of lower power and will therefore have different recoil, report and muzzle flash characteristics than carry ammo.  In fact, some light-loaded practice/target ammunition may cause malfunctions in some semiautos.  This is so because their springs must be designed to function with the more powerful carry ammunition.  The lesson is to practice, upon occasion, with the ammunition you intend to carry.

Another significant issue is ammunition cost.  If you’re going to be truly proficient, if you’re going to have the confidence that will help to ensure that you’ll likely be able to avoid using a handgun, which should be your preferred outcome, you must practice–and practice correctly–regularly.  Anyone can learn to shoot, but shooting well under pressure is an acquired skill, and a skill that is degraded without consistent, correct practice.

All of the ammunition that follows was priced in lots of 1000.  This may sound like a great deal of ammunition, but when learning to shoot–particularly if you attend professional schools–this amount of ammo can be consumed with amazing speed.  Revolver cartridges and the .380 can be sometimes difficult to find in 1000 round lots, but when purchased in that quantity, one can usually save $20 or more over the per-box price.  The prices listed are quite close to those of other brands currently for sale on the ammo market.  Hollow point ammunition suitable for concealed carry normally comes in 50 round boxes, but every manufacturer markets ammunition claimed to be nothing short of miraculous in 20 to 25 round boxes at much higher prices.

In revolvers, .38 special ammo is generally cheaper than .357 ammo of the same type, and this is particularly true for ammo employing lead bullets.  Be aware, however, that .357 practice ammo with lead bullets is infamous for leaving significant amounts of lead fouling in revolver barrels, requiring time, tools and dedication to remove (too much fouling degrades accuracy and can actually be dangerous).  In semiautos, 9mm ammo is generally much cheaper than the other three most common types and is generally much more readily available.  Checking prices on the Midway USA site (a popular supplier of ammunition and all things gun–I’ve found them uniformly excellent to work with–their web site can be found here) circa Early March, 2014 I found these prices for 1000 round lots of common ammunition:

NOTE:  As this article is reprised in early March, 2014, the significant national ammunition shortage that drastically drove up ammunition prices has begun to abate.    Most common ammunition–with the exception of.22LR–is easier to find and much more plentiful, though there are still shortages in many places at least part of the time.   Prices are still somewhat higher than when the latest run on ammunition began, but I was able to buy Remington .380 practice ammunition–FMJ, brass cased and reloadable–for about $15.00 per box of 50 cartridges last week at a local WalMart, a good price indeed.  Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats continue to be the greatest ammunition and firearm salesmen America has ever known.

Legend:  LRN: Lead Round Nose.  FMJ: Full Metal Jacket—the bullet is round nosed and fully encased in a copper jacket.  JSP: Jacketed Soft Point—the bullet has a partial jacket with a flattened lead nose exposed.  SJSP: Semi-Jacketed Soft Point–the bullet has a partial jacket with a flattened lead nose exposed.  Bullet weights are expressed in grains.  All are listed in 1000 round case lots.  All have fully reloadable brass.

Magtech .38 Special, 158 Gr. LRN, $309.99

Magtech .357 Magnum, 158 gr. SJSP, $452.99

Magtech .380 ACP, 95 gr. FMJ, $304.99

CCI Blazer 9mm, 115 grain FMJ, $252.99

Remington UMC .40 S&W, 180 gr. FMJ, $379.99

Remington UMC .45 ACP, 230 gr. FMJ RN, $439.99

By way of comparison, 2000 rounds of .22LR ammunition–and there are many models chambered for this caliber in revolvers and semiautos–can currently be had for about $389.00 (about $195.00 per thousand).  This is a relatively high price for what used to be very inexpensive ammunition.  Midway’s catalog lists many different types of .22LR, but virtually every one of them is out of stock with no backorders being accepted, which means that Midway can’t predict when they’ll have them in stock.

However, .22LR is not a good choice for a self-defense arm, though for a backup gun to be used only at near contact range as a last resort if a primary arm is lost or out of ammunition (an article on just such a weapon is available here), it is a reasonable choice.  That said, the .22LR is a very versatile–though currently hard to find and relatively expensive–cartridge and no shooter should be without at least one .22LR rifle, and arguably, a .22LR handgun, but more about that later

New Factory Ammunition Alternatives:

The ammunition about which I’ve been speaking to this point is factory loaded with all new components.  A great deal of money can be saved with factory-reloaded ammunition.  Such ammunition is usually loaded with once fired (and properly cleaned and resized) brass and sometimes less expensive bullets.  This allows a manufacturer to provide a line of quality ammunition at very reasonable prices, particularly when compared with their top of the line defensive ammunition.

Such ammunition is virtually always completely reliable, however, it is a good idea to use nothing but first quality ammunition loaded with all new components in a firearm upon which you depend for your safety.

One can also save quite a bit of money by reloading ammunition, which for many people is enjoyable.  Once the necessary equipment has been purchased, the price per round can be lower than even factory-reloaded ammunition.  However, reloading is labor intensive and time consuming.  Many experienced shooters buy their handgun practice ammunition in bulk and reload only specific, larger rifle cartridges, taking great time and care to produce the most accurate ammunition possible.

WHICH CARTRIDGE SHOULD I CHOOSE?

As the Texas Ranger suggested earlier, in ammunition, bigger is sometimes better.  Consider the Moro uprising of 1899-1913.  The Moros, Islamic revolutionaries in the Phillipines, fought a protracted jungle war with the US Army.  This was America’s first real war against an Islamic enemy (save the Barbary Pirates in Jefferson’s time) and its first jungle war. The Moros were small in stature, being only a bit over five feet tall on average, but were fierce and fearless, willing to sacrifice themselves in mass ambush attacks.  Many would drug themselves prior to combat, lowering their resistance to pain and increasing their homicidal rage.

At the time, the US Army’s issued revolver was a .38 caliber which was quickly discovered to be wanting.  The round nosed lead bullets fired at slow velocities might inflict wounds on a charging, drug crazed Moro that would eventually result in his death, but proved to be exceptionally poor in stopping such charges, even with multiple torso hits.

Desperate for a better gun/cartridge combination, the Army first tried several thousand German Lugers in 9mm.  They were beautifully designed and made pistols, but they were complex and prone to malfunction in jungle fighting and the FMJ 9mm rounds were no more effective at stopping the Moro.  These were soon replaced with Colt revolvers in .45 caliber, and though less technologically advanced than the Luger and 9mm, the heavy, slow bullets were effective in stopping Moro warriors.

In 1911 the Army adopted what is authentic American genius John M. Browning’s most enduring handgun design: The Colt 1911 semiautomatic pistol in .45 ACP.  Large, heavy and reliable, the 1911 fired much heavier jacketed .45 caliber bullets that proved to be excellent man stoppers, however they did not see service until after the end of the Moro conflict.  Revolvers would never again be a general issue weapon in the American military.  The model 1911 in various configurations and the .45 ACP have been very popular since and is still used by elite U.S. forces.  The Beretta M9 (military version of the 92F) 9mm pistol was adopted for general military issue in 1985.

Consider too the experience of Chuck Taylor, founder of the American Small Arms Academy the school from which I am proud to hold instructor’s certification.  Many years ago when Taylor was the editor of SWAT Magazine, he conducted an experiment that remains controversial to this day.  To better gauge the energy imparted to a human being by the various popular calibers, he donned a high threat level bullet resistant vest and was shot—at near point blank range–by a variety of weapons and bullets to gather data on the strength of bullet impact as felt by a human target.

Taylor wore metal trauma plates over the thick Kevlar of the vest, and it was on the trauma plates—they were frequently replaced to avoid the possibility of unintended penetration–that all rounds were stopped.  Unfortunately, that test is not, to my knowledge, available on the internet.  However, I recall that of all the rounds tested, up to and including a .7.62 (.308) fired from a battle rifle, no round imparted greater felt impact energy, and by a considerable margin, than the pistol caliber .44 Magnum fired from—if memory serves—a revolver with a 6″ barrel.

So are we to conclude that a heavy handgun bullet (app. 240 grains) in .44 caliber is more effective than a heavy rifle bullet (app. 168 grains) in .30 caliber traveling essentially twice as fast?  If bullet diameter and weight and velocity were all that mattered, that might be a reasonable assumption.  However, there is no question that the .308 is a far more deadly round in actual combat where body armor is not the rule and where greater distance is more common.

Taylor’s article on handgun choice at the ASAA website is certainly worthy of your time. His article on handgun ammunition stopping power is also valuable.

This brings up one of the classic shooter controversies: 9mm vs. .45 ACP.  The basic argument is which is best, a larger/heavier, slower bullet, or a smaller/lighter but faster bullet?  Proponents on each side often engage in lengthy proofs in the print and Internet gun community fraught with righteous anger and disdain and broad swipes at the manhood of opponents supported by scientifically derived (or not) ballistic tables and anecdotal evidence of horrendous failures of the cartridge they disfavor.  The truth is any of the cartridges I mention here, properly placed, will be effective.  Poorly placed, the most powerful handgun cartridge will have minimal effect.

In truth, I have carried both cartridges and have never felt under-armed with either.  In fact, I’ve been carrying the 9mm almost exclusively for the last sixteen years.  There are indeed instances where people have been shot multiple times with either cartridge and have barely been affected, only to more or less fully recover later.  On the other hand, there are many instances of attackers being completely and immediately stopped by single rounds.  Generally, the .45ACP has a well-deserved reputation as a man-stopper and will, in objective, “scientific” measurements tend to outperform smaller, lighter calibers.  Interestingly, the .357 125 grain JHP, when scientific measures are applied, often bests both.  However, there are many other factors to consider.

A full-sized model 1911 has a seven-round magazine of .45ACP.  It is an excellent, but large and heavy handgun and while some people do commonly carry it, it is hardly an optimal concealed carry choice for most people.  In recognition of this reality, a number of companies produce many models of the 1911 with smaller proportions.  Because the focus of this article is on concealed carry, following are the specifications of three Glock handguns, all subcompact models, and the Ruger LCR.

Keep in mind that it was the decade-long (now thankfully defunct) Clinton gun ban that gave birth to the Glock 26 and a great many other similarly sized handguns by other manufacturers.  Under the ban, new magazines were limited to 10 rounds, so Glock, whose smallest gun at the time was the G19 with a 15 round magazine, designed the G26 for ten round magazines, making a much more concealable weapon that still carried an impressive amount of ammunition.  It certainly gave the gun banners fits.  Irony can, upon occasion, be particularly satisfying.

I picked these handguns not only because I am fond of Glocks and regularly recommend them, but because one can choose either 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP in three separate, imminently concealable handguns that are, for all intents and purposes, nearly identical in size and weight.  One can find a variety of larger handguns with larger ammunition capacity, but all will be heavier and much harder to conceal.

SUBCOMPACT HANDGUN COMPARISON (weight in ounces):

Glock 26: 9mm Parabellum

G26: 9mm, Barrel: 3.46”, L: 6.29”, W:1.18”, H: 4.17”, Weight: 19.75/26.1 (unloaded/loaded), 10 Round magazine capacity.

Glock 27: .40 S&W

G27: .40 S&W, Barrel: 3.46”, L: 6.29”, W:1.18”, H: 4.17”, Weight: 19.75/26.98, 9 Round magazine capacity.

Glock 36: .45 Automatic Colt Pistol

G36: .45ACP, Barrel: 3.78”, L: 6.77”, W:1.13”, H: 4.76”, Weight:20.11/26.96, 6 Round magazine capacity.

Ruger LCR: .38 Special

LCR: .38 Special, Barrel: 1.875”, L: 6.5”, W: 1.283”, H: 4.5”, Weight: 13.5 unloaded, 5 round capacity.

Notice that the .45 ACP model is larger and heavier than its 9mm and .40 S&W cousins, but not by much, which is a testament to Glock design and engineering. The largest difference is in magazine capacity.  With one round in the chamber and a spare magazine, carrying a Glock 26 yields 21 rounds.  For the Glock 27 it’s 19, and for the 36, 13.  A Ruger LCR with a speedloader yields 10.

There are two primary types of magazines: single and double stack.  This photo depicts a single stack magazine—for the Walther P22 pistol in .22 LR—and a double stack magazine—for the Glock 26 in 9mm.

Walther P22 Magazines (left); Glock 26 magazines (right)

The Walther magazine holds 10 rounds, each directly atop the other.  The Glock magazine also holds 10 rounds of much larger ammunition in a shorter magazine.  It does this by means of making the magazine wider so that each round can slightly overlap the others (notice the windows in the back of the Glock magazine).  While this makes the grip of the handgun larger in diameter, the Glock design minimizes this problem because it has no grip panels that must be attached to the frame by means of screws, adding width.  The entire grip/frame is polymer and can be quite thin yet very strong.

Glock has recently introduced an entirely new handgun in .45 ACP, the G30S.  This weapon has a slimmer slide and overall smaller configuration, yet has a double stack 10 round magazine.  It’s an intriguing combination, but because it is so new, I have no actual experience with it.

The Glock 26 and 27 use double stack magazines, but in order to keep the Glock 36 as compact as possible–roughly the same size as the 26 and 27–a single stack magazine is necessary.  Despite being much smaller than the full-sized Colt model 1911, the little Glock has an ammunition capacity of only one fewer round.

For revolvers, there are two primary means of rapid reloading:  Speedloaders and leather or nylon pouches. 

Safariland Comp I Revolver Speedloader

This is a Safariland speedloader (Safariland makes several different models).  Cartridges are snapped into the device and when it is inserted into the cylinder and pushed against the ejector star, the device releases the cartridges into the cylinder.  With practice, very quick reloads are possible.  Various pouches that fit on the belt are also available, but the cartridges must be loaded by hand.  With practice, it’s not difficult to load two at a time with reasonable speed, but of course, this method is surely slower than reloading using a speedloader, which is—for most people—slower than reloading a semiauto with magazines.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

The choice of a handgun for daily concealed carry can be quite complex, yet once one has settled on a cartridge, it may come down to nothing more than the appearance of the weapon or the way it feels in the hand.  Few handguns are more beautiful or feel more comfortable and “right” in the hand than the Browning Hi-Power in 9mm (John Moses Browning was indeed a genius).  Once one masters the manual of arms, few handguns are easier to shoot with great speed and accuracy than the model 1911, and I’ve owned several 1911′s and a Hi-Power.  Yet I adopted Glocks, buying one of the first Glock 19′s available where I was living when they were introduced to the United States and I haven’t looked back.  When the Glock 26 was introduced, I snatched up the first gun I could find.  I’ve been carrying them since, recently trading my generation three for a generation four 26.  Even Chuck Taylor, who used to carry a custom 1911, has been carrying Glocks in .40 S&W for a long time.

If your heart is set on a Sig or a Walther, or a Smith and Wesson has caught your eye, no problem; they make fine firearms.  My point is merely that Glocks do everything a carry handgun should do.  They are utterly reliable, easy to shoot well, light, virtually indestructible, operate with revolver-like simplicity, are safe, accurate, very easy to clean and above all, they simply work.  There are many good reasons Glock owns the American law enforcement market.  And as I noted, they are available in large, medium and compact sizes in every popular caliber.

If you are a new shooter, take care not to fall into changing handguns like shoes.  Yes, it’s great fun, but what you need to do is build your abilities and your situational awareness.  Find one handgun that works for you and learn everything about it.  Shoot it as often as possible and carry it until its safe and effective use is second nature, but remember that over-familiarity causes negligent discharges.  Any firearm must always be respected, and there is never a legitimate reason to ignore basic safety rules.

You’ll almost certainly try a variety of holsters, magazine pouches, and a variety of other accessories.  That’s OK too, for we’re different and have different lives and needs.  But one thing needs to remain the same as you learn and grow in awareness and effectiveness: your handgun.

One primary reason I settled on the 9mm is its lack of recoil, accuracy and relatively low cost.  I can shoot it a great deal and maintain my skills.  I am confident that should I ever have to use the weapon to defend my life or the lives of others, every shot will impact where I want it to impact.  This confidence is hard won and priceless.

The most important weapon you’ll be using is your mind.  It is this that must be trained and improved.  Your handgun is merely a tool employed in the process, but every craftsman uses the best, most reliable tools he can possible afford, because anything less produces inferior results.

The last installment of this series—which will be posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014–will focus on the issues and equipment relating to carrying a concealed handgun and several other related topics.