What Pistol Did Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers Use to Kill the Canadian Parliament Terrorist?

I would lay odds that the retired RCMP officer used a Smith & Wesson 5946 in 9mm. They come with 15-round magazines. I doubt that the RCMP used the politically correct 10-rounders. If you look at the video above, you can see the characteristic outline with the ejection port and the telltale stainless finish . . .

640px-RCMP_S&W_5946

Another source confirms that the Smith is the choice of the RCMP. From Silvercore Firerams Training, BC (pdf):

Smith & Wesson 5946 – The Side Arm of the RCMP
Manufactured 1990 – 1999 A double-action-only (DAO) variant of the 5906, this can be visually distinguished from other models by the complete lack of decocker levers. Note that the hole is still there, and is just plugged, so it is hard to tell on a right side shot. The slide is also slightly longer at the back, almost concealing the rounded-off hammer, and the frame matches this contour. Issued at one time to numerous law enforcement agencies, notably the NYPD (not exclusively) and the RCMP.

Here is Sergeant at Arms Vickers getting an extended and well-deserved standing ovation as the House of Commons resumed business yesterday.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I have a S&W 5943, which is the lighter alloy version in DAO. Love me some 3rd gen Smiths!!!

  2. avatar Pillager1900 says:

    This is a man even the great John Wayne would have been proud of.

    If this would have happened here, sadly I don’t think he would have gotten the overwhelming praise he deserved for his courageous actions. We need to celebrate the selfless brave men and women who put themselves in harms way to protect others no matter what badge they do or do not carry.

    1. avatar READY,FIRE,AIM says:

      Roger that…

    2. avatar Don says:

      Good thing the LAPD wasn’t involved. With all those drawn weapons around There’d be some dead bystanders.

      1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        or the NYPD!

        plus all those strained fingers from working those 98lb triggers

  3. avatar CSNick says:

    .9mm confirmed, jihadi soul unmolested by .45 and free to claim Allah’s snackbars in the hereafter.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      .9mm?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        It’s pretty high velocity …

  4. avatar David says:

    Spelling police here. It’s “Sergeant.”

  5. avatar pat says:

    Any word on what gun the jihadi scum used?

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Best guess seems to be it was a .30-30.
      http://montrealgazette.com/news/national/1024-city-gun

      A hunting rifle, not one of those evil “assault weapons.”

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        That makes it a “sniper rifle”, then–that’ll be next on the list…

      2. avatar John M. says:

        The lever gun was the “assault rifle” of 140 years ago. You could ask Custer, but I hear he’s unavailable for comment.

        If I were called upon to defend myself, I could do a lot worse than a Winchester 1894 in 30-30 or .32 WS. 7+1 capacity of a proven deer slayer in a light, handy package.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      News said shotgun.

  6. avatar Neil D says:

    Ironic that a man with a gun had to stop another man with a gun. All in a country were pistols are basically prohibited for most of it’s citizens. The BG that came in was not supposed to have a gun, right ? Legally he was prohibited but that did not stop him, of course. Once again the BG ignored the law. Go figure. Good thing that they at least let the SaA have a weapon. Otherwise there would have been mayhem. And all of this in a country that is touted to be so much safer than the USA due to it’s “progressive” gun laws.

    1. avatar dano says:

      That’s basically untrue. Pistols are easily obtained in Canada and its easy for an American to bring one into Canada. You just need to get and authorization to transport. Now, being able to carry a handgun in Canada is something that you can’t easily do

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Nope. Was going fishing in Alaska. Wrote ahead for proper paperwork, declared them at the border crossing.
        Denied entry. Can’t transport hand cannons through Russia. I mean canada.
        We were told revolvers are prohibited weapons.

        1. avatar L. Vaillancourt says:

          If the barrel length of your revolver was less than 4 1/8 inches than it would be a prohibited firearm in Canada. When the Liberals crammed their common sense gun legislation down our throats in the mid 90’s they chose that barrel length as the cut off for prohibited status because the industry standard at that time was 4 inches on most pistols. By adding an eighth of an inch to the minimum barrel length they effectively made 90 percent of legally owned pistols prohibited. If your barrels were over the minimum then you should have been able to get a note from Nanny letting you transport your firearms (trigger locked in an opaque, locked box in the trunk of your car, stored separately from your ammo)

        2. avatar Geoxen says:

          Either they woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day, or the handguns had a barrel length less than 4.25 inches.

          Either way it is stupid, but it is what we Canadians have to deal with. Wish the laws weren’t so restrictive.

      2. avatar ensitue says:

        I just crossed the Canada border we were asked if we OWNED handguns, one said yes, it was at home.
        2.5 hours later, after a thorough search of vehicles and persons to see if there might be handgun ammo (includes any CF handgun cartridge, empty ammo casings et al) we were allowed on our way.
        Happy that it prevented a terrorist attack (snark)

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I went through that kinda crap once, around 25 years ago, on my one and only visit to Canada.

        2. avatar Richard In WA says:

          Had a similar one in the summer of 1989. I was just 8 and we were going to Penticton, BC on vacation. Border Guards kept grilling my parents about handguns and mace (we had neither in the and owned neither of them at home). After repeated questions we were pulled into a holding area while they tore the car apart, searched all our luggage, they searched underhood, spare tire, pretty much everywhere. They were totally convinced we were smuggling handguns in our beige Audi station wagon.

    2. avatar mirgc says:

      More ironic: When a man with a gun stops a crime, the man is highlighted and celebrated. When a man with a gun causes a crime, the gun is highlighted and demonized.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        No it gets more stupid than that. If a man with a gun stops a robbery, than he is ignored or chalked up as an isolated incident. If a man with a gun commits evil with it, the politicans go after everything but the criminal that needs to be regulated.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m pretty sure the BG who came in was not supposed to kill people. Beyond that, why would he care about the rules?

  7. avatar Red Sox says:

    I’m sure it’s probably been said already but. A good guy with a gun stops bad guy with gun. Suck it MDA.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      He’s a “trained” “law enforcement officer”, like the “reserve sheriff’s deputy” who shot the beheader in that OK “workplace violence” incident. Other CCWs who have stopped crimes are “trained” “military veterans.”

      I would continue, but my quote marks key is busted now.

      1. avatar Red Sox says:

        Rokoruta,

        What are you saying, only “cops” are “qualified” and “trained” “properly” to have weapons? “!”

        1. avatar cobrey92 says:

          He’s not saying that at all. He’s saying that’s how the media spins it to fit their agenda.

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      “suck it MDA”. 🙂 Inside joke.

  8. avatar fishydude says:

    Good thing he did not follow the example set by the NYPD on the train while a civilian took down a knife wielding spree killer.
    Congrats to the man. They were lucky that one of the few people that can legally carry in Canada was there.
    Have to wonder if the guy would even have made it that far if Canada wasn’t so anti-gun.

  9. avatar Tom W. says:

    Sgt. At Arms,…..hence the title..
    Keyword: “ARMS”.

    At least the Canucks uphold tradition and still let him carry. He deserved the ovation, but thats his job.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      He had to run to his office to retrieve the pistol from a lockbox. He wasn’t carrying.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        That explains why he didn’t reholster after the shooting.

      2. avatar John M. says:

        Still, not bad for a guy whose job description includes the phrase, “wear funny hat.”

        Jokes aside, this guy’s a hero. Nice shooting.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Hey, watch the video. He may have been in the front, but there were an amazing number of armed people (men and women) following him TOWARD the sound of the guns. Those people are not the wimps I imagined. Of course, some should note the large number of non-uniformed armed people working together without shooting each other, making one anti- argument look really stupid.

      3. avatar Bob72 says:

        Wow, I did not know that. I wonder if some of the Progressive politicians in Canada realize how lucky they are to be alive.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well he did get that standing ovation from the same people prohibiting the carry of arms. Maybe they are trainable.

    2. avatar Drew says:

      Very rarely is it ever any mans job to risk his life for another’s. This is important to understand clearly because it is well established that it is not the job if a cop in the US to protect you. He has every right to place his well being above yours. A cop may legally allow you to die, even if it’s just for his convenience. And that is how it should be and is yet another reason to tool up and take care of your self. I would never want another to die or be injured saving me from my own lack of Darwinian drive.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Preeee-cisely! A cop having an attitude of “if you are not ready to defend yourself, screw you, I am not going to die for you.” is really fair, so long as the citizens are free to tool up as they please. Otherwise, not so much.

  10. avatar tufty says:

    But, but, EVERYONE knows that 9mm is a worthless caliber. My guess is he distracted him with a shot in the air and then beat the scumbag to death with the butt.

    Yeah, I’m stirring the pot. 🙂

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Well you wouldn’t want to shoot a jihadi with a .40, that would leave not only the BG dead but every one of his 72 virgins as well.

    2. avatar Rokurota says:

      It was a 9mm BTHP (bacon tail hog point).

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Oh man… I never click HuffPo articles but I just had to read that one.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          You really should read Huff Po’s anti-gun articles.

          The POTG far outnumber the grabbers in the comment section…

        3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          For those of us who reload – seems like a tiny piece of cooked bacon on top of the charge before seating the bullet should do it, right?

  11. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Isn’t it also a matter of targeting? Has the Muslim leadership targeted the other G-8 countries yet?

    The general call to arms from Muslims has happened so the others will surpass us quickly.

    I also do not buy into that radical Muslim thing. Muslim parents are no more effective at child rearing than we are. Therefor, their kids are as apt to pick up arms and go crazy as ours are to do the things they know that will drive us to distraction, and Obama wants more of them here!

    Think it through folks!

  12. avatar Coldhammer says:

    Nice, that was the first pistol I ever owned (back in the early 90’s, sold it a long time ago). Loved it, but it was a heavy beast compared to today’s Polymer framed guns…

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      that’s why I got the 5943 instead. . . . much lighter and easier to carry. 15+1 of goodness and eats any type of ammo (I think mine is in the safe loaded with Hornady Critical Defense 115grain)

  13. avatar g says:

    Bravo, Mr. Vickers. Bravo.

  14. avatar C says:

    And he came to work the next day. I only wish that he’d been wearing the hat when he popped the guy.

  15. avatar kevin says:

    That is one bad ass old man. Hat’s off.

  16. avatar KarVer says:

    Well Zod its a good thing the BG didn’t go far while the Sgt went to get his pistol.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      From what I read, his office is adjacent to the Parliament chambers. But yes, he did have to leave the scene and come back to take care of business.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I bet he will be carrying from now on…

        1. avatar General Zod says:

          …if he’s allowed to.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          He is actually inside parliament, has actually already saved their sorry asses once. Isn’t that a fun question, can he now carry inside parliament?

  17. avatar Biff Baxter says:

    Obviously, the gun and caliber of heroes.

  18. avatar 2AMexican says:

    That is a very good man right there. Character is everything.

  19. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

    I’m glad he was able to end the incident without further loss of life. But as I said in another post yesterday, it behooves officials guarding high-profile targets to actually load and carry their weapons in a useful manner, rather than just ceremonially. Does anyone know for sure what Cpl. Cirillo’s weapon was, and of course, WHY the ammunition and magazines (if applicable) for it were locked up? Hmm, is obvious, no?

    Tom

    1. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

      Okay, I found a pic of Cirillo on the NY Post website, purportedly taken only minutes before the shooting. It’s an AR, almost certainly a Diemaco C7 rifle or close variant thereof. I notice that the photo clearly shows a magazine inserted, but of course it was empty. So foolish, so tragic. In my opinion, his death is just as much on the hands of his superiors that mandated his disarmament as it is the hands of the perpetrator. Mindset, people….mindset. Godspeed, Corporal.

      http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/oneone1.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1

      Tom

      1. avatar Cornholio says:

        Here here! I’m betting our .mil gate guards are not allowed to have one in the pipe at the least.

    2. avatar L. Vaillancourt says:

      I did a 6 week stint as a sentry on the Tomb in 2009. He would be carrying a Diemaco made C7, bolt in, empty magazine in, and bayonette fixed, but no ammo issued. It wouldn’t have made a difference for Cpl Cirrilo as he was approached and shot from behind, but the second sentry(one of his best friends BTW) may have been able to get a shot off at the terrorist. It has been reported that he literally dodged a bullet and then attempted to pursue the assailant. Realizing he couldn’t cover the distance in time he returned to his fallen comrade and began first aid.

      1. avatar Bob72 says:

        Wow! A few decades ago, a few NATO nations would post guards with empty guns. Local BGs found out, and started killing guards for their weapons.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          That would be a predictable result, wouldn’t it? First just “give me the gun or I’ll kill you”, then Bang, you’re dead, take the select fire weapon. Every gun in ceremonial use should be loaded, every person carrying one should be prepared to kill and eat. I have no objection to persons in uniform performing in ceremonies without a firearm, but if a firearm is involved, it should be loaded.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    +1 Tom. It’s Canada eh. Nothing bad happens in the frozen north. Until it does. Was the Muslim boy,packing a lever gun???

    1. avatar L. Vaillancourt says:

      It was in the news today that he had a Winchester 30-30. The news article went out of it’s way to point out how much worse this would have been if he had been using a semi auto with 30 round assault clips and shoulder thingies that go up. The Winchester was described as “painstakingly slow” to reload. The worst part is that he was a prohibited person, which means he acquired his rifle illegally. Now the antis are screaming to bring back our recently abolished Long Gun Registry, which is also a publicly stated goal for two out of our three major political parties.

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    Canada’s government should issue at least one Sergeant at Arms to every household in Canada. Because this sh!t is only going to get worse, and Canada has been conveniently disarmed for the shooting and stabbing pleasure of every home-grown Muslim terrorist.

  22. avatar John M. says:

    I know there’s no arguing about taste, but my word those old Smith autopistols are just astoundingly ugly. You know something went wrong when you start making Glock ripoffs and your pistols get prettier.

  23. avatar Tony says:

    Very unlikely that the 5946 was used by this hero. That pistol falls under the prohibited classification here in Canada due to barrel length. Unless he already had a prohib license and was permitted to carry said prohib pistol then it’s extremely unlikely this is what was used. The RCMP use this pistol but not off duty due to it’s class.

    1. It is clear that the Sergeant at Arms was on duty.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It is amazing, no other word for it, that after this kind of lunatic attack, we can be discussing barrel lengths and classes and assorted completely unimportant BS as being somehow important, as opposed to “the good guy needs to have a damn GUN!”

  24. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Gonna carry mine to church this weekend. I am on security duty.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If I went to church, I would be on “security duty” every Sunday, and I bet you are, too.

      1. avatar canuckanddon'treallyneedagun says:

        ok – i’ve read your stuff. Most Canadians are ok with the laws and we don’t need “protection” at church. We see how things are going in the US and I gotta say – have you lost your mind? You guys actually need protection from each other, not the BGs.

        1. avatar LordGopu says:

          Yeah not all Canadians agree with you. If we have a right to our lives, then by extension we have a right to defend them in case of attack. But if we are denied the tools to defend ourselves then our right to life is being denied.

          Like if we have a right to free speech but then they put all sorts of limits on where you can speak freely or how (perhaps only speaking, no computers or typewriters or pens), then that right doesn’t exist.

          I’m hoping a constitutional challenge will bring down our gun laws one day here in Canada. Perhaps someone in a wheelchair applying for a permit to carry and being denied since a guy in a wheelchair obviously isn’t going to be fighting or escaping from an attack.

    2. avatar Charles5 says:

      I also volunteer for security duty at my Church. However, they won’t let me carry because I am not a cop, a prior cop, or have taken the certification courses to be an armed security guard. Even though most of the other security guys are 35 to 40 years older me and I can out shoot every last one of them. And the United States Navy trusts me to arm up and stand ATWO and be responsible for the safety and security of a $6 billion warship. But I can’t carry to protect my fellow congregants because reasons.

  25. avatar Don S says:

    I was a Marine guard at the U.S. Naval Academy in the Early 1980s. Gates, Crypt of J.P. jones etc. Not sure about now. But back then, we had an Unloaded 1911 in a snapped holster, and Mags on my left side. I remember practicing how fast it took to get the weapon out, Mag loaded , racked and ready. What a Joke.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email