Article Shared with permission  of  Rob PIncus .

When I’m scheduled to be a guest on Armed American Radio and don’t have anything in particular to talk about, Mark Walters often sends me links to current event type stories that he’d like to discuss or get my opinion on. Late yesterday afternoon, he did just that. The link he sent me was to the following news story about an armed “good samaritan” who stopped an assault on a woman by holding her attacker at gun point until the police arrived. You can read the story and view the video, HERE at the local CBS Affiliate Website.

Naturally, this story is right up the alley of Personal Defense and Concealed Carry Weapons topics that I often talk about on AAR. In fact, this exact scenario is one that we recent talked about on various social media pages, after we published a training video on the topic of Using a Firearm to Detain a Person at Personal Defense Network. It is also something that we have addressed in I.C.E. Training Company‘s Home Defense and CCW Courses as part of our “Immediate Aftermath” Scenarios.

Based on reading the story and watching the video, I commented on the incident and what I saw in the second half of the second hour of Armed American Radio last night, which you can Listen to HERE:  AAR, 12/28, 2nd hour. My comments begin about 35 minutes in.

Shortly after the end of my segment on the show, I got a few private messages letting me know two things; First, I knew the Good Samaritan that was the subject of the story… at least through interactions on social media. Second, That he, Aaron Kreag, had already made a public statement (via the same CBS News program) as a follow up to the initial story. Shortly after becoming aware of those facts, I saw that Aaron himself had commented on a post in the I.C.E. Training Discussion Group and offered to discuss the incident with me. We quickly set a time and I had a chance to discuss the incident with him for about an hour earlier today. In the meantime, there has been an avalanche of typical internet assclownery from the code-name heroes in various forums and even in yes-I’m-saying-this-with-my-name-next-it Facebook Comment Threads. Most of the real embarrassing stuff comes from the contingent of our community that would kill ‘em all & let god sort it out… these guys are all wishing that Aaron would’ve gone Full Vigilante and pulled the trigger. The other silly side of the cacophony is saying that he had no business getting involved, one commenter even going as far as to characterize the man beating the woman as a “marital dispute”!

After talking with Aaron about the incident and hearing his detailed descriptions of both his actions and that of others involved (the attacker, the victim, his wife and the police), I can tell you that he acted within 5% of exactly how I would want one of my students to have acted, once the decision was made to get involved.

1. He saw a very brutal attack taking place in a vehicle adjacent to his on the side of the road. He described it to me as if a 200+ lb UFC Fighter were kneeling over a defenseless opponent no longer capable of defending themselves raining down punches and elbows with the referee doing nothing to intervene. By the time he was in a position to see clearly what was happening and actually intervened, the male attacker was out of his car seat, overtop of the much smaller woman in the passenger seat.

2. He had his wife call the police before he even left his own vehicle or drew his own gun.

3. He had to position himself where the attacker would see him so that he could try to use verbal commands and a show of force (the gun) to get him to stop the attack.

4. He also had to position himself so that the victim would not be in his line of fire if he did feel the need to shoot and so that his wife would not be in unnecessary danger should the attacker have pulled a gun and started shooting at him.

5. He gave clear verbal commands and demonstrated trigger discipline (even showing his finger OFF the trigger to the attacker to try to calm him down in the middle of the incident) through the event.

6. When the police were arriving, he consciously brought his gun back to the high-compressed ready position to appear less threatening, but remain ready to defend himself if necessary.

7. When the police arrived and began giving him commands, he immediately complied completely.

8. He identified himself  as being legally armed.

9. He let the police investigate until witness statements and physical evidence had established that he was the “good guy”.

10. His education in the legal use of force served him well in regard to his articulation of why he did what he did during the police interviews that followed the incident (both immediately and a few days later).

During our discussion, it was clear that Aaron was still processing some of what had happened. Having discussed these types of incidents (shoot and no-shoot versions) with scores of people and watched scores more video’d statements, this is pretty typical of a situation that was so recent. Aaron was very clear about the important parts of what he saw that prompted him to take action. he was also very clear about his very high level of focus on what the attacker was doing and less awareness/interaction with anyone else (victim, bystanders, etc.). He also drew an interesting distention between his emotional/instinctive reactions during this incident in which he took “on balance” action to insert himself as a third party witness to violence and situations he recalled from his military service when he was the target of potential harm. He said that he had a clear “Now What?” moment when he realized that the immediate threat to the woman had stopped and that he was standing in the middle of a street with traffic backed up and bystanders all around him and a gun in his hand. He found out later that one of the many 9-1-1 calls during the incident had described it as “a white man in a gray jacket trying to carjack a black man in a red car”! Having not done any specific scenario training for that moment, he was left to improvise the rest of his response. A reminder that we need to go beyond marksmanship skills if our intention is to train for personal defense. Of course, the training Aaron had as a combat medic  and flight paramedic contributed well to his ability to think quickly and act responsibly under stress.

It was a very frank and open conversation that I thought reflected highly of his integrity. Aaron was even very clear about the things that he would’ve done differently if it were to happen again tomorrow… a sure sign that he isn’t responding with ego and bravado dictating his words. He’s even rethinking a few things, possibly including his choice of carry gun, that may affect how he trains and practices in the future.  I’ll even add that I think Aaron is precisely the kind of guy we should want speaking about this incident and representing our community of responsibly armed citizens. In the past few years, we’ve had over-zealous community-watchmen, bloodthirsty frustrated neighbors, anti-government conspiracy mongers and several other dubious characters getting way too much mic and camera time with the media supposedly representing American gun owners. Aaron is a confident & well spoken family man and military veteran. He has been an active contributor to online discussions about training and is an active competitive shooter as well as being dedicated to developing his defensive shooting skills. Although he doesn’t actively teach, Aaron is also an NRA Certified Instructor and has been certified to teach the Texas CHL Course. Could we find out tomorrow some embarrassing facts about him? Could he turn into a loudmouth disappointment?  Sure, I guess… but I’m betting against it.

As I said initially on Armed American Radio, the judgement of whether or not Aaron should have gotten involved is one that I hesitate to make and caution others against making as well. These are very subjective situations with a million variables. It sounds like this is a situation that I might have gotten involved in myself, though I can think of circumstances which would’ve prevented that as well (such as being with a very young child who might be exposed to danger at the time). I can understand why someone might say that they would or would not have taken similar actions… but, I cannot understand why anyone would arbitrarily say that Aaron was wrong to have taken the actions that he did. I think it is even worse that anyone might second guess his decision not to shoot and merely use verbal commands and a show of force to get the actions to stop. It is certainly possible that had he shot and killed the attacker, the physical evidence and witness statements would’ve justified his actions, but having been in those “could’ve shot” situations myself in the past, I consider it the highest sign of the responsible control of lethal force that he didn’t shoot because he didn’t actually perceive the need to do so. It is a classic example of what I refer to as the “Should versus Could” issue. One of Texas based Combat Focus Shooting Instructors, Aaron Israel, has also written an article about this incident that covers the details of related Texas Law and his own thoughts on Aaron’s tactics. It is definitely worth a read.

None of us should want to live in a society where people refuse to get involved because they fear solely for their own safety. None of us should want to live in a society where people roam the streets looking for opportunities to use force against their fellow citizens without regard for solid observation, critical thinking, their own safety & that of those around them and the rule of law & due process. Somewhere between these two scenarios is the society that most responsible gun owners want: One where the evil that exists in this world is tempered by good people with the training, tools and willingness to act prudently on behalf of good. In that society, there is less evil. In that society, those who would be bullies, predators and violent criminals hesitate to act for fear of the good guy with a gun. And, sometimes in that society, as it was in Southlake, TX on December 26th, the Evil that acts out is  stopped, a victim is protected and there is less bloodshed instead of more… even when a gun is brought into play.

-RJP

Looks like due to high profile use and constant  questions by users. The ATF has changes its mind/policy/ whatever,  on the legal use of the popular SIG brace for AR15 pistols. Ostensibly for use by putting your firing arm through the “brace” to more easily hold the AR pistols with one hand. Many have been using it as a legal way to have something very close to a SBR. due to an earlier opinion letter from the ATF that  it did not make the part illegal if fired in a way other than it was intended, i.e. arm brace.   This now seriously calls into question the further use and popularity of the SIG Brace,   I am sure for many, if you can not  use it on the shoulder, few will care for it much longer.

RJeff21   Shared these scanned copies via AR15.com earlier today.

You can read opinions gnashing of teeth and rending of multicam clothing here.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1700566_Sig_Brace_ruled_ILLEGAL_TO_SHOULDER_by_ATF.html

One of the above pictures show a keyhole, another one shows a cloverleaf.

While I was in the Marine Corps, the terminology had at some point gotten mixed up. Our instructors in boot camp would call cloverleafs keyholes. I forgot about that till much later.

About two years later, one of my peers, was reading a book on aircraft maintenance. It stated that to check the barrels on the machineguns on the aircraft, you set up a plywood board and fire at it. If more than half the rounds keyholed, you would replace the barrel. This guy was astonished. He came to me and asked me why would you replace a barrel when half the rounds are going into the same hole? So I had to explain what a keyhole really is.

A keyhole is when a bullet strike the target sideways. Usually because it is unstabilized and tumbling. The top picture shows two 75 grain .223 match bullets fired out of a M16A1 barrel at 25 yards. Notice that both struck the target sideways. However both struck very close to point of aim.

A cloverleaf is where you have multiple touching impacts. The bottom target shows five 9mm rounds fired at 7 yards. The bottom cluster of three shots would be called a cloverleaf.

I am not exactly a collector of WW2 gear, but being a devoted worshiper of the Colt M1911, I have always had a love for the old nostalgic  web belt, brown leather holster and accessories that came with the issuance of the 199 during the war. the belt was set up with what you needed to support the pistol in garrison or the field and more was added to it as needed via the 1910 wire hangers most of the gear used at the time.

The belt and pistol was a sign of authority and prestige, When you saw a soldier with the gun and belt, it was most likely an officer or a SGT; He was the guy who had the authority of command at least on some level.  The  set up was also used by anyone who could get it of course and was a huge comfort to men who had main weapons slow to deploy or useless at close range, like a mortar or bazooka. And of course every paratrooper could use one when their M1 was taken apart in a jump bag and they found themselves in the vulnerable moments after landing on the DZ.

While current products that fill the same role are better, the attraction I have  for the old ” pistol belt and 45 automatic ” is still strong and I often will wear it with a plain Gov model M1911 when hiking or doing chores around the property just for the fun of it and the feeling of history it give me.

I have had this original  J.A. Show belt since the 80s, Purchased from an old widow at an estate sell.  The 1st aid kit is original as well.   Recently I hit the jack pot with the WW1 era mint, never issued, 1918 magazine pouch.  This pouch was widely used in WWII as well as the other model with a single push the dot snap often seen.  While I have both, the 1918 model really is my pride,  Being the Colt was adopted in 1911 and used shortly after in WW1. I like the idea of the canvas gear being as close to the guns birth in time.  I can not put a finger on why, but I do.

The 1918 pouch was carefully stored in some government depot for who knows how long, and is mint.  It has the snap to connect it to the pistol belt and keep it in place.  The drab green/khaki color matches the belt nicely. the original US stamp is still sharp and clear on the belt as can be seen.

Above. the picture shows how the two 7 round  GI issue mags set in the pouch along with makers mark, model and date stamp on the inside flap still bright and clear.  The brass metal fittings still have the black finish that cuts down on the shine of the brass. It won’t be there for long since I use this stuff often.  The combo of the items is classic and iconic in my mind, seen in hundreds of movies about killing nazi scum bags or commie north Korean human waves or older still, charging across no man;s land in France trying to make it to the krauts trench system.

I don’t have a lot of original WW1 gear as I said, but what I do gather has a lot of  value to me and meaning.

I’m not a fan of Beretta, but I find this ad of theirs awesome.

The FN M16A4 I carried in Iraq.

When I enlisted in the USMC I was issued a M16A2. Other then when we occasionally added a PEQ-2 IR laser, a flashlight, or the issued M203 grenade launcher, we felt this gun did everything we needed it to do.

We didn’t know about things like quad rails and quick detach accessories. Those introduced a whole different mentality to how to use our weapons.

When the M16/M16A1 become the M16A2 it gained about a pound. From the M16A2 to the M16A4 it gained about another pound. Most of this comes from the Knights Armament Corp. (KAC) M5 RAS rail system. The KAC M5 RAS is a good rail system, but it has been surpassed by much lighter better free float rails.

That additional weight, combined with the weight of various lights, lasers, and optics along with the fixed stock not playing well with our body armor made using the M16A4 a great deal more awkward. There was a huge difference between just wearing ALICE gear and shooting a M16A2 verses wearing an Interceptor vest with plates and MOLLE II gear shooting a M16A4 with ACOG, PEQ-2, and a Surefire.

My Colt AR15A4 with Trijicon TA31RCO-A4

Since I got out of the military, I have owned several rifles similar to the M16A4. I had a Bushmaster, a BCM, Saber, and now a Colt AR15A4. Most of these guns I shot for a while then got rid of. The reason for that is that the M16A4 is not particularly special at anything.

I have often told people that the M4 is a jack of all trade, but master of none. Truthfully, the M4 really excels at many of the roles it is used in. The M16A4 type rifle falls into an odd place where it doesn’t particularly do any one thing significantly better than the M4, yet is inferior in handling and weight.

The M16A4 is not a precision rifle. While it is more than accurate enough for combat, it is not a sniper rifle. If your planning to shoot in Rifle Competition, you would be better off with a rifle with a fixed carry handle with match sights, and a free floating match barrel.

While the M16A4 isn’t overly large or heavy, it certainly is not as handy for shooting indoors or confined spaces. The M4 and smaller guns show distinct superiority in handling while in close quarters shooting conditions.

While I was in the Corps we were generally of the belief that the M16A2/A4 was a superior weapon system to the M4. Statements of increased accuracy, reliability, and lethality (due to increased muzzle velocity) were occasionally thrown around.

When using Iron sights, the longer sight radius of the M16 is clearly apparent over the carbine. However most of us no longer use iron sights as our primary way to aim, so this is a moot point. As for mechanical accuracy, the M4 doesn’t give anything up to the M16.

Around 2005-2008 or so I often recall reading on the major gun forums that the AR15 rifle is so very much more reliable than the Carbine. We do know that the rifle has lower gas port pressure and should be easier on components than the carbine. Still for most users they will not see a reliability benefit from the rifle. Not to mention the carbine is clearly reliable enough for groups like the SEALs, U.S. Army, and various foreign special forces groups. So back in 2006, the M4 was good enough for the US SEALs, but not a good enough weapon for the USMC infantry.

While I was in there was a push to give the Marine Infantry M4 carbines. This was considered foolish. Later after I was out there was a push to make a “Product Improved” M16A4 with features like a free floating rail, and a compressible stock. I have heard that from several sources that the USMC decided instead to just give infantry Marines M4 carbines. In 2007, shortly before I got out, one of the other unit got brand new M4 carbines. When I inquired why, I was told that one of John McCain’s son was in that unit. I don’t know if that is true, but it sure seems like the type of reason one unit would get superior equipment. Clearly the M4 is good enough for the USMC now.

I like the M16A4 configuration, but I own one more for plinking and nostalgia. I firmly believe that the majority of AR15 user would be better off with a good carbine than the M16A4 configuration.

A common complaint about the Trijicon SRS is a reflection of the circuitry that appears when the optic is turned towards the sun.  We experienced this on a recent range trip and snapped a photo to give everyone an idea of what users are talking about when they reference the issue.

Very distracting and quite easy to lose the dot, which was indeed on in this pic.

Can’t say I’m a fan.  I’ll be sticking with my Aimpoints.

www.looserounds.com/2013/08/28/review-trijicon-srs-reflex-sight/