Garand

FANTASY & WEAPONRY
By Kurt Saxon
A pistol for the bedroom,
A shotgun over the door,
A 30-06 for reaching out;
You don't need any more.
If an intruder makes it to your bedroom, shoot him with the pistol. If he's trying to break in, use
the shotgun. If he is fifty yards or more away and shooting at you, pick him off with the 30-06.
This is the real Survivalist's arsenal; basic, inexpensive, effective. So why all the promotion of
rapid-fire weapons? If you aim at a man and don't hit him, he' going to move, and probably shoot
you. Banging away in the same general direction is just a senseless waste of ammo. You need
practice, not rapid-fire. You also need a realistic attitude, not a fantasy.
But fantasy sells. There is big money in Macho. The more awesome your weapon looks and
sounds, the tougher and sexier you look. Girls get off on rapid-fire. It's the Freudian part of the
package.
The Rambo Survivalist image being sold to neurotics is making weapons dealers rich. It is also
showing the profound ignorance of weapons among the general public.
To know guns, you must understand the three basic methods of shooting; sweeping, pointing and
aiming.
Sweeping is with rapid-fire. Its main purpose is to dispatch several enemies before one can shoot
you. Such confrontations are unlikely in any actual civil conflict. Raiders don't bunch up. There
would be no point to it. Of course, if you are the raider you would have a better chance wiping out
a couple and two or three children if you have a rapid fire weapon.
Sweeping is also anticipated in cases of moving targets. Proficiency with the shotgun will do more
damage to the moving target than expert use of rapid-fire.
There is a psychological disadvantage to dependency on a rapid-fire weapon. One tends to sweep
or just bang away ineffectually. It is the nature of the weapon and a case of the weapon controlling
the man.
An example is a commercial for a TV crime story. One of the heroes bursts into the room and
says, "I just had an Uzi emptied on me outside". Obviously, the character with the Uzi swept, did
not aim or even point. At least 20 shots and nothing. Of course, it was fiction. But that kind of
shooting is becoming acceptable.
If an automatic weapon is shifted one and a half feet, in 20 or more yards, the bullets are spaced
several feet apart. You could empty a clip on several people and not hit one. The nut who
unloaded several clips of an AK-47 at a crowd of 35 children in Stockton only killed five. What if
he had had a rifle and had to aim? What if he had had a shotgun and had to point? Couldn't he see
his sweeps were ineffective?
He was crazy but he wasn't blind! He knew how to operate the weapon. But he was psyched up
with the glamor image of that weapon. He was not controlling that weapon; it was controlling
him.
Another TV segment was on the Gulf. Here were all these troops practicing, banging away at a
dune, fully automatic, as usual. I only hope the Iraqis are on full-auto. I wouldn't want anyone to
get hurt.
Yet another segment was at a California shooting range. It told how the state had 300,000 assault
weapons owners but only 15,000 had registered as ordered.
There were about ten men banging away on semi-auto, as fast as they could shoot. They were all
pointing, as they were shooting too fast to correct aim.
I suppose they were all wealthy, as ammo costs a lot. Whatever practicality there might be in such
weapons, only the wealthy can afford them.
Watching those men, I could see that their practice was ineffective. The targets were only 10 to 15
yards away. No proficiency can be gained by simply banging away at a stationary target from a
distance at which one only has to point.
Watching them reminded me of the reason for the arming of all the American forces with rapidfire
weapons. During the Korean War it was found that only one in nineteen soldiers would fire
his rifle. They were mostly uniformed civilians in a no-win war and didn't want to get killed. So
they would just hunker down and try to ignore the Chinese. Having Garands, which demanded
aiming, put them at risk of getting a bullet in the face.
So by the time the Vietnam fiasco rolled around the boys all had the confidence-giving, noisemaking
M-16s. They were effective enough for jungle fighting where one could not aim anyway,
even if he knew how to shoot. It didn't matter, however, since the other side had AK-47s; just as
worthless. Of course, there were plenty enough bombs and napalm to keep the VC's numbers
manageable and most U.S. losses were due to booby-traps. So a rifleman was about as useful as
nipples on a boar.
I know it is hard to believe that glamor weapons with all their sound and fury, are more hype than
effect. However, if one of their proud owners has it out with any practiced hunter with any rifle,
the hunter will win.
Now we come to pointing. Apart from shooting at flying ducks, the shotgun is mainly for
pointing. Man-killing shot is from #4 to 00 buckshot. (Single 0 buckshot has 12 .30 caliber pellets
per round). The best killing range is up to 50 yards.
The 12 gauge shotgun is the most devastating hand-held weapon. Few people realize how really
terrible the shotgun is. The Geneva Convention bans its use in war but police use it. It was also
preferred in Vietnam over regulation arms, even though a soldier's family had to send it to him.
A buckshot pellet does not have the penetrative force of any bullet of equal diameter because it is
round and not as heavy as the longer bullet. Buckshot is also fired at lower velocities than bullets.
But they still inflict wounds of maximum size, induce considerable shock and hemorrhage. Also,
when two or more pellets hit, their total effect on the victim is as the square of the number of hits,
not just an additive progression; that is, two hits equal four times the effect of one hit, three hits
equal nine times that effect, and so on. If the victim is hit by three Single 0 buckshot pellets it is
the same as if he had been hit by nine .30 caliber Carbine rounds.
For the combat shotgun, it is best to take a hacksaw and cut the barrel down to the legal 18 inches.
This gives it a slightly wider shot pattern and makes it a little more maneuverable.
Rapid-fire, semi-auto from an assault weapon has no greater killing range than does the shotgun.
And since the shotgun must be pointed, and the shot pattern is wider, multiple hits per target are
surer than with any assault weapon.
Next in pointing, is the pistol. Beyond a few feet you want a shotgun or a rifle. Aiming a pistol is
possible, but only with practice. Practice, however, has made some pistol shooters as deadly at
long range as shot gunners or riflemen.
The American Rifleman article, "Debunking The Debunkers", reprinted in US MILITIA Issue 1,
tells what can be done with a pistol. Read it. For the most part, the pistol is for close quarters.
You ought to own a pistol and it should be a .38 Police Special with a six inch barrel. I
recommend a revolver over an automatic, since the revolver has fewer parts to malfunction. And
if you don't think the .38 has stopping power, you just don't realize what you can do when you
practice. You may have been fantasizing over glory guns, the most popular of which is the .45
automatic. Read the aforementioned article.
Several years ago I was in a Los Angeles gun shop. A plain-clothes officer was at the counter
talking to the dealer. The dealer stepped back into an alcove and reached up to a shelf. A shot rang
out. The gun the dealer had reached for had fallen butt-first and discharged. Before the sound
registered with me the officer had his pistol drawn. Naturally, there was no threat. His action was
pure reflex. That cop was fast!
In the same time period, there was a funeral for a police officer fallen in the line of duty. The
media covered the funeral and some dummy exploded a bomb outside the funeral home as the
attending officers were assembling. The newspaper featured the frame of the newsreel of the
explosion. In it was an officer with his revolver half-way drawn out of his holster! Both the
accidental discharge and the explosion caught on film showed the reflexes of these men to be a
tiny fraction of a second each. So you can believe the examples of speed in the article.
Also, if you practice and so become as proficient as those two officers, both in speed and instinct
aiming, you can be sure of a fatal hit before your opponent can even touch his own weapon.
For the .38 revolver, I recommend the six inch barrel over the two or four inch. This is because of
the barrel's rifling. The rifling gives the bullet its spin, which keeps it on course. The longer the
barrel, the more the rifling and hence the more spin. The more spin, the greater the accuracy. A
six inch barrel gives enough spin to guarantee about as much accuracy as you will need when
using your pistol.
The glamor weapon among pistols is the automatic, especially the .45. It is heavier, bulkier and
more than twice as expensive as the .38. Its main claim to fame is its stopping power. But a wellplaced
bullet is a greater guarantee of stopping power than a bullet's size. And as the article
shows, speed comes with practice. Reliance in mechanics over skill leads to overconfidence.
Many glamor gun fantasizers are going to die when they confront a foe who has mastered his
weapon.
You may know of whole police departments adopting .357 Magnums or automatics. Maybe their
chief watched too much TV. Again, skill with a basic weapon is better than reliance on mechanics
or power. The punk spraying lead is no match for a cop skilled with his .38.
Now for aiming. The reason for aiming is to hit the target at a greater distance than is practical for
pointing. A rifleman hits everything he aims at. A macho fool just bangs away with a lot of sound
and fury signifying nothing; except the deserved death of the ignorant.
Unfortunately, few people aim today. They have mistaken multiple loud reports for damage. One
has but to watch newsreels of Arab-Christian conflicts in Lebanon, closeup coverage of the fire
fights in Vietnam, the results of drive-by shootings in Los Angeles, etc., to see that moderns
simply are not learning to shoot accurately. The discrepancy between shots fired and clean kills is
appalling. Our honored WW II dead are spinning in their graves!
Aside from a shotgun or pistol, one should not own a gun not designed for aimed hits. Anyone
who advertises such a gun should be boycotted as a traitor to his country. Those who decry the
deaths of little children should shame the incompetents but not spare the sellers of weapons which
flatter such ineptitude.
I got a laugh from a news report some time ago. A character named T. J. Johnston in California,
an anti-gun-registration-protester, was burning his order to register his assault weapon. His
cronies were banging away at some targets ten yards away with more assault weapons. No
rifleman would waste ammo shooting at a target that close.
If he goes to jail he might have time to reflect that one rifleman with an M1 30-06 Garand could
wipe out his whole flock. He might also reflect that a well-regulated militia made up of private
citizens proficient in the use of real weapons would have no fear of gun confiscation.
Have you ever heard of Sergeant Alvin York? You have probably seen the movie, starring Gary
Cooper. York was a conscientious objector. But when his friends were dropping like flies he
reacted. A hillbilly, he was a trained hunter from childhood.
He first worked his way around the enemy's flank. He was armed with a 1903 30-06 bolt-action
Springfield and a pistol. He killed 20 Germans and captured l32. Of course, few of those captured
knew it was a one-man job. The point is, he could shoot! He killed 20 men with one well-placed
bullet each. He had no need for rapid-fire. He knew that every time he aimed and fired a man was
dead.
Most American and German soldiers at that time, with their bolt-action Springfields and Mausers
could also shoot. They had to work those bolts and correct every time they fired. And there were
men actually trying to kill them all the while! There was no getting around their having to know
how to aim and shoot. No room for fantasy.
Among the best combat rifles ever made is the WW II U.S. M1 30-06 Garand. It is a semi-auto
with a 1,000 yard effective killing range. It holds only eight rounds so there is no tendency to
bang away at a single target.
However, don't discount the bolt-action rifle. After aiming and firing, the bolt is worked as the
gun is reaimed, so no time is lost. Most good military and hunting rifles are bolt-action anyway.
You might be tempted to buy the most expensive rifle. But it is best to buy the most common, the
tried and true, the least flashy.
Pause a minute to reflect; if you were driving cross-country on a very important trip, would you
choose a common car or a sports model? Of course, you would look grand in the sportster. But if
getting there were the only important consideration, you would want the reliability, and
serviceability of your dependable standard model over the object of your fantasies.
The same goes for civilian combat. You may fantasize owning an expensive rapid-fire gun,
mowing down raiders with ten slugs in each. It looks great in the movies, but why use 10 bullets
where one would do? Besides, raiders won't bunch up and charge. They will fan out, using what
cover is available, and you will have to pick them off one by one.
Now, if in your fantasies, you used a 30-06, preferably an M1 Garand, and could shoot, you could
make your fantasies pay off. Then, with practice in making every bullet count, you could defend
your territory against any number of predators.
So if you must fantasize about weapons, fantasize being a better shot than any thieving parasite.
Fantasize putting one well-placed bullet into every looter with the stupidity to set foot in your
community.

gripper

I shoot the same irespective of whether its my duty gun(.38 revolver) my personal stuff (autos) or rifles (SMS or AK)......I use the sights,AND I do not "spray and pray".....help,I am just as likely to beat or stab an intruder to death as shoot him.

DaRkWoLf

I LOLed hard considering the numerous factual errors on technical points.

I find this article disgraceful to servicemen who have been properly trained to fight with the weapons the author derides.

Then again, Kurt Saxon is a loon with zero credibility.

gripper

Kurt Saxon-the de-caffeinated Gunkid.......

Garand

I do believe that the main point the article is trying to present, is that the need for a lot of firearms, fitted with all the bells and whistles are really not required?

John in AR

+1 Agree that that's the core of his point, based on the intro to the article.

And also agree with that point. I have quite a few guns, but I admit that I have quite a few guns that I don't genuinely need.

.45 COLT

I believe he would have made the point much better if he had been less preachy and more accurate with his "facts".

DC

DaRkWoLf

His "facts" and supports are bogus and if you researched the author you would find that he is very biased against anyone with any kind of money. In fact, he advises people to firebomb suspected communists and build hackjob guns a-la a less refined version of Gunkid because better ones are for some reason abominations to mankind, let alone cost money. The article is a product of the drool of someone incapable of genuine cognition.

In regards to your point and perspective, which is much more valid, I agree entirely that it's the man not the machine. The correct implement for the task, as determined by the mastered skillsets you will employ, is however a force multiplier not a detractor; again, assuming your skills and the situation call for that implement. One should also know how to make their implements work as best they can outside of their mastered skillsets, in pursuit of attaining more mastered skillsets.

gripper

Hey,I like.firearms from the WW1 era to the present.Not really a.fan.of.tacticool.accessories.to.double.the weight of.the weapon,BUT some do have utility.I just do not believe one can gauge a skill level by an arbitrary standard of the shooter's preference in a weapon(even you AR guys-LOL!).....Saxon and Bill River shared a trait or two.....

.45 COLT

So are you saying that because the man is a nut job (in your opinion), any points he presents are invalid?

DC

DaRkWoLf

No, I am not saying any and all points he can present are invalid. However, the basis for the writing of this article is flawed due to his biasses. Furthermore, many of his supporting statements are either simply untrue, or logical fallacies.

As to your statement of it being my opinion that he's an un-credible source, I'm unsure how advocating weapons assembly which makes a Khyber-region parts-handler look like George Gardner by comparison makes anyone look anything other than an uneducated nut job. In and of itself, the advocacy of murder against anyone not of his political leanings makes self evident points as to the man's character. Then of course, we get to where he believes all of his conjecture without ever having the slightest bit of experience to generate legitimate conclusions from.

gripper

Sorry for the typo.....I meant "Ruger" not "River".....Saxon always struck me as a "Luddite-elitist" for lack of a better term.....his way was the only way-and I tend to shy away from accessorizing a weapon to the point of making a light,handy rifle or carbine a gadget heavy pig.I just do not see my way as the sole route worth taking.YMMV.

.45 COLT

I'm not familiar with Saxon, search turns up he's a "Survivalist". Most survivalist-types have a very narrow focus, but that isn't necessarily bad. I'll reserve opinion on whether he's a looney or not.

As fsar as a "Khyber region parts handler", I suppose that is meant to convey that he advocates for some pretty primitive (by some folks' standards) weapons. I've seen groups armed that way, several different WWII and earlier (some were much earlier) rifles, mostly held together by prayers and baling wire, a few spears, an occasional AK-47 mixed in with the odd club or two. They gave pretty good account of themselves.

DC

DaRkWoLf

Again, the knowledge of how to ghetto rig weapons together is valuable, as is the knowledge and mindset on how to maximize said weapons effectiveness.

Saxon, on the other hand, opts for ghetto rigged first and entirely eschews any high quality weapon as being, for some reason, unusable. He also always correlates price with glam. He considers his ghetto rigged weapons in the same light that Gunkid does. How the M1 Garand escaped this in the article is probably based on the authors predisposition and perception of the iconic versatility and dependability of the weapon.

DaRkWoLf

That would be a most excellent description.

I definitely agree. That said, just because one's got rail-estate doesn't mean one has to fill it up. I really like the MOE handguards and URX III for their approach to weight and accessory attachment.

gripper

Good attitude to have.I appreciate everything from the MM91-30 to the _SVDS and the AK100 series.I am not knocking the M16/AR/m4 types-I just know my preferences.

AustDeathMachine

I agree, while I did like his reprinting of older books form the 1800's some of his weapon choices and tactics, as first and only choices, leave a lot to be desired.

However I do agree that there are some out there, I've seen them at gun shops shows and ranges, that think they can "buy skill" with no real practice.

Garand

When it comes to accessories, I'm very old school. For 8 years as a young infanteer I humped a ruck over a lot of parts in the world with a rifle over my shoulder. The FN FAL didn't have a lot of bells and whistles, required you to develop your skill as a marksman and rarely broke down under heavy use and abuse. I won't even consider saying that about the rifle we replaced it with!

gripper

Always a solid performer......was that the C1 pattern?

Garand

yes it was

AustDeathMachine

But the problem with Kurt these days is he eschews modern weapons and tactics showing little want to change his views on them as the world changes around him.

I'm not sure if this is from pride, stupidity, arrogance, laziness or craziness

One thing he very much ignores is the impact 4th gen warfare can have on the average citizen by it's adaptation by criminals.

If he wants to live in the 19th century that's his business.

I prefer to train and adapt for today and the immediate future.

Just look at his reasoning for owning certain weapons. It sounds like if you even touch an AR,AK or whatever including a FAL you turn into a spray n pray ghetto monkey. And the same for pistols instead of revolvers.

His choice for everyone being a 6"bbl .38spl revolver is nuts and full of false economy. He states that the 6" barreel is more accurate due to more rifling??? No it's the sight radius being easier for novice shooters. Cheaper to practice with? Ummm maybe maybe not 9mmP is fairly cheap for practice loads. Get with the 21st century Kurt. The revolver is more durable because it has less moving parts? Kurt again this is 2011 not 1900. How many armies of the world issue revolvers as sidearms for front line troops?

For me I think the best choice is a relaivly modern deisgned pistol of fairly low upkeep chambered in a round that has sufficeint penetration to reach the CNS and vital organs. But of a high enough capacity to achieve the desired results before needing a reload. By desired results I mean your opponent hitting the ground. I do not think that any pistol that is of an average size is able to do this with any common round in one shot short of perfect bullet placement; hence the preference for a high capacity and/or a quick reload.

As for the shotgun he is at least consistant with over estimating it's effectivness I remember his buthcered 1897 Winchester and maybe a Model 12; . Shotguns are great for what they are but not nearly as effective as he tries to make them out to be at 50yds with what amounts to a cylinder bore. Nothing wrong with a good 870 for example but to tout one as more effective than an assault rifle is just plain nutz. An "new" AK with a good bore, not a FUBAR WASR made by the monkey's at Century, but something like an SGL-21 or a minty MAK90 will have a much longer range than any shotgun. Slap even a cheap red dot on one and one on a shotgun and see what hits you get out at 100, 200 and 300yds.

Unalist

Is it relevant? If you mean is it the state of the art of survivalism? No, I don’t think so. The piece seems very dated. When was it written? I recently reflected on how my own opinions have changed with my experiences of the last 10-15 years.

Is it influential? Not on it’s own so that I can tell. I don’t think the opinions are actually original. Saxon has always been more of a copyist. However, a revolver, a shotgun and an M1 Garand are not to be brushed off for survival. We’ve all discussed why and why not in the SHTF Basic Firearms List.

Saxon I feel is not a “gun” person. He’s a doom’s-day-er that has combed the antiquarian publications for what he feels will be of benefit after the EOTWAWKI. He’s collected up a fair amount of improvised explosive information in addition to other odds and ends. Add to this a few fairly descent thought out SHTF scenarios and that in my opinion is him.

differ

The riot gun is pretty ineffectual at 30 yds, much less 50 yds. once you switch to slugs, you have a poor set of sights, poor trigger pull and poor accuracy, in a gun with which you haven't practiced much. I know this, because if you valued such skill at such range, you'd favor the rifle, for its cheaper ammunition. Slugs are expensive, so nobody shoots them enough to be anything like adequately skilled with them.

There's really no need of a longarm until shtf, and once it does, there's very little need for the pistol, or at least, you'll lose if the pistol is what you use very much. The pistol is for now, when merely "bluffing" with it suffices, most of the time. Once everyone has a longarm in hand, tho, the pistol won't amount to much, if anything.

Garand

Rifle, shotgun & handgun all have their places. If you can't figure out what they are, time to go back to the start.

Garand

I've re-read this after seeing it sit for a while. I believe that the revolver does have its place in the right circumstances. My wife competes with me in Cowboy action and shoots at least 10-12 matches a year. Other than that see has only mild interest in shooting other handguns. Later today I'm taking my youngest daughter to the range, for some father-daughter time. She favors my 4" S&W M66. Both revolvers are easy to use for my wife and daughter, they don't waste ammo and they enjoy shooting them. Which means they will become proficient with them.

I'd much rather see someone shoot 1,000 rds per year out of a revolver than one who owns a brand new "wonder" 9/.40/.357 Sig/etc with a whole lot of bells and whistles and gets no or minimal trigger time. Who is in a better position to defend themselves, if "the balloon goes up"?

Garand

I want to retract something that I said yesterday. My daughter put her 150 or so rds of .38 Spl down range yesterday then said she wanted to try my 1914 mfg Colt 1911 Gov't Model. She put about 50 rds down range with it, shooting better with it than with my Colt Series'70 fitted with a .22 conversion kit. I was stunned to say the least!

gripper

She sounds like a good kid.

Garand

Ya, I love her enthusiasum at time for shooting, especially when dad is building the ammo!

gripper

Hey Garand!Long time no hear!

Garand

oh, I have been around