I read lots of articles promoting the carrying of a backup gun (BUG). The authors conclude that a backup gun is a better option than learning to reload and perform malfunction clearances. I beg to differ.
Misguided beliefs
Sorry to break the bad news, but you’re probably not good enough to carry two guns. To do so effectively, you have to be proficient with both. In concert.
Have you been through a training program putting rounds downrange with both your primary and your backup guns? Did you master integrated combatives to counter an ambush? I didn’t think so.
Core skills
One of the issues I have with pro-BUG articles: the assumption that the average shooter can’t be adequately trained to perform timely, efficient reloads or correct malfunctions with their primary handgun. One author highlighted a type three malfunction, commonly called a double feed. The necessary correction is time consuming, but doable and trainable.
Considering the allocation of time, money and resources, the average shooter has available, I believe they’re better off learning and practicing core skills rather than trying to master the art of switching — and running — two separate [presumably different] handguns.
Reloading and malfunction clearance are core skills. The late Col. Cooper is credited with the Combat Triad: mindset, marksmanship and gun manipulation. I find it odd that gun manipulation would be dismissed so easily.
Performance standards
You will notice that marksmanship is part of that triad, and for good reason. If you decide to employ your firearm defensively, the ability to place rapid and effective hits on target is more than a core skill, it is critical.
Marksmanship is one of the most demanding of the core skills. Students struggle with their marksmanship skills for many reasons. You need an intimate knowledge of how sight management, trigger management and follow-through. Meeting performance standards is difficult enough with a primary. Try it with a smaller backup gun . . .
The ambush
Some gun guys say they don’t need to be as accurate with their backup. It’s for use when the battle for survival gets up-close-and-personal.
Most self-defense situations are up-close-and-personal, right from the start. They are, for all practical purposes, an ambush. Whether your immediate reaction is to evade, escape, perform some form of hands-on combative or go for your gun, you’re not going to have much time to choose.
When the ballistic opportunity does present itself, you need to go with what you know the best: your primary firearm. Do you need a secondary? Chances are you won’t. And if you do, chances are you’d spend just as much time fishing it out as you would performing a reload.
The exceptions
Carrying a backup gun is a great idea — if your primary gun breaks/malfunctions. Begging the question: why are you carrying an unreliable firearm? That said, your primary gun may become damaged in a fight. (A fight-damaged gun is more likely than a malfunction, especially a type three malfunction).
By the same token, there’s also the possibility that your strong hand may become disabled. If you carry your backup gun on your weak side . . . Then again, as most ambushes occur at close range, a fixed blade carried off your weak side would be a faster and better solution for this situation.
Finally, the gun pass.
I discouraged passing a second live firearm to an unknown person in a violent or potentially violent conflict. Passing it to your partner is far more plausible and a good justification for a backup gun. Then again, why isn’t your partner carrying their own gun?
Bottom line: a backup gun is not a horrible idea. Learning how to use your primary firearm effectively and efficiently — including presentation, marksmanship, reloading and malfunction clearance — is a better use of your time and money.
Jeff Gonzales is a former US. Navy SEAL and preeminent weapons and tactics instructor. He brings his Naval Special Warfare mindset, operational success and lessons learned to the world at large. He is the president of Trident Concepts in Austin, Texas.
Great creds. I disagree with several of his points.
Next article please.
His credentials are great if you are talking about going to war (or even a SWAT team). On the other hand, I don’t know that being a Navy SEAL has much to do with basic self defense for the average person on the street.
Of course I’m not tactical or anything. I’ll just keep rolling with my 642 or LCP in a pocket holster. If that isn’t enough, then I’m ready to meet Jesus. A J-frame or micro .380 is better than what I use to carry ( nothing).
The odds of me being anywhere in this town where I might be ambushed are essentially nil. BGs don’t roll like that around here. I don’t travel much anymore, and I make sure to stay out of areas I don’t belong. Eight shots is all I have, and I ‘spect it’ll be enough, if ever the occasion should arise. At home, there are both spare mags and NY reloads for any home invasion, another unlikely event, least ways in this town. If I lived in a more gang infested area, my choices would be different.
The one cred I would not question is the ‘no better friend, no worse enemy’. I would say Mr. Gonzales probably doesn’t get any jollies telling you what from what, it stems from an honest interest to provide training / instruction and to make you better at what you do for your own self defense, as it enhances everyone else’s.
Here’s a good book: http://www.sot-g.com/the-art-of-war/
>>We are a niche group in the world of mediocrity and bland leadership offering team building training and events
I already like those guys. Might even provide training at performing Hannibal Lecture properly.
“You will notice that marksmanship is part of the combat triad — and for good reason. If you decide to employ your firearm the ability to place rapid and effective hits on target is more than a core skill, it is a critical skill”
Which totally contradicts EVERYTHING previously asserted.
Having a pistol in your hand that actually works when you need it improves marksmanship 100%.
The author also talks about such encounters frequently being up close and personal, so you have a stovepipe or double feed, your adrenaline is pumping, you’re trying to remember the clearance drills and this guy you have been trying to shoot, and who has probably been trying to shoot you, is Tueller drill close while you go through the slap/curse/shake/wiggle/re-seat/work the slide routine under fire, trying to move off the X, trying to find cover…
Drop that damn pistol, pull the BUG, and shoot the bastard! At bad breath distances it should be a lot easier to deal with minor differences in the controls of different pistols than with one that just will not work. And one other thing: If your primary jammed or otherwise fvucked up on you and you go to the time and trouble of correcting the problem, how is your confidence of getting through that magazine without another failure?
I think I would go with the New York reload at the point where I am under fire and the first gun fails or runs dry.
A better use of time and money – and that is the kicker for why backup guns will never be very popular among the rank and file gun owner. We just can’t afford it. So we do the best we can with what we have and hope our guardian angel didn’t sleep in that morning.
About once a year I try to ‘upgrade’ my daily carry. (Taurus TCP) most recently I have started carrying a NAA black widow in .22 WMR. I have changed jobs in the last year and the likelihood of me needing a gun went from .02% to .004% so I figured I’d give it a try for the summer. (The BW was purchased to be a mountain biking carry piece loaded with at least one round of snake shot.)
The other day I had my TCP in my pocket and in a practice draw I tried to pull the hammer back!?! Sooo, I’m back to the TCP. I only wish the sights were a little better on that bugger. I can hit a man sized silloette 7 for 7 at 25 yards but I’m 3 for 7 on the 6″ plates. I can go 5 for 5 on the smaller target with the BW simply because it has better sights.
Get a set of Nitesiters stick on sight dots. For $11.98 if you have a slight bit of skill to apply them, your TCP will now have 3 dot sights similar to an LCP Custom. I did this and it transformed an OK sight picture into an excellent sight picture and drastically improved my accuracy with the TCP. I had already painted the sight bumps with nail polish, but the Nitesiters are the real deal. You get 8 dots, so that is two guns and a couple of spare dots, or as they point out on the web site, you can do 4 Heinie style sights. They actually glow in the dark for a few minutes if you charge them with a UV light or leave the gun out in the sun.
OT, Thanks. I have one of the little LCP IIs and the only thing that I really disliked was the all black front sight. Used Miss Piggy yellow toenail polish and it works, but this looks like an even better option.
On Topic. The backup gun that works beats the hell outta the EDC gun that doesn’t. And there simply some times when the little BUG is all you can conceal and carry. And as has been said many times before, “The BUG in your pocket beats the hell outta the .45 in your nightstand.”
Continuing today’s Robert Heinlein theme:
“Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you make your second shot perfect.”
Is this dude trying to steal the ‘resident blowhard’ title from FirearmConcierge?
“Have you been through a training program putting rounds downrange with both your primary and your backup? Did you master integrated combatives to counter an ambush?”
I have to master integrated combatives to counter an ambush in order to carry a gun in my pocket?
Well damn… *looks down, kick pebble*
Looking at his bio, I think that ‘preeminent’ and ‘unapologetic’ when used together translate as ‘resident blowhard’.
I would direct both of you to my comment above.
Dumb article. There is no reason whatsoever one is incapable of becoming proficient with both their primary and backup gun. It doesn’t have to be one of the other. And no matter how fast or proficient one is at reloading or stoppage clearing, they probably will still never be as fast as switching to a second loaded firearm.
NYPD officer Jim Cirillo survived nearly numerous gunfights as a member of the elite stakeout squad, yet he never once reloaded during a shootout. That was because he relied on backup guns, The same was true for Lance Thomas, a LA Watchmaker who survived 4 different gun battles with armed robbers. In 3 of them, he used more then one gun (In one, he went through three different revolvers), but he never once reloaded. Those people were experts. That they preferred to rely on backup guns rather then reloading tells us everything we need to know.
If you feel there is a valid reason to carry a firearm, then you have no reason to argue against carrying a spare. Carrying a firearm in our daily routine shows we are prepared to defend ourselves against unlikely events. There is nothing wrong with being a little extra prepared for the extra unlikely ones.
You answered your own question there. Key word- revolver. We’re not reloading with speed strips. Reliable high cap semi autos would likely have changed both those guys opinions.
The LA watch seller was wounded in one of his encounters. He was using a semi auto and according to him his own blood made it impossible to properly grip the auto and it jammed.
He tossed it aside and finished the fight with a revolver.
You are mistaken. In that event he simply switched from one Sig autoloader to the next one.
jwm:
You’ve been super patient with this so I’m going to give you a preview of what you asked for even though I have not completed all the rounds of testing that I want to. As I said to you before, the actual write up is going to be comprehensive.
My testing of this situation, using half a dozen different auto loaders and a couple revolvers finds this: unless your arm is injured your grip on the gun should be basically unaffected in terms of shooting. I have not found a way of introducing lubricant to the situation that makes the gun “ungripable” or “unshootable” in this regard.
However, here’s the rub: Your controls, other than trigger, mag release, or a very aggressively checkered hammer are fucked.
If the gun jams (something I have not yet been able to create but that’s part of my next round of testing) or goes dry you’re pretty well screwed. Other than a gun that will let you really slam a mag into it and then will drop the slide itself, hence reloading itself for you, you’re not reloading this thing because you will never get the slide lock to release unless the gun has been modified in some way. You’re not going to be able to press the slide release and unless you have something exactly right nearby you’re not going to be able to use the rear sight to slingshot the slide. Grabbing the slide itself? Fahgeddaboutit. It’s just too slippery. The only control that will work, because it’s a straight line press, is your mag release. Everything else goes to pot.
Now, you’re thinking that this makes a good argument for a wheel gun. It doesn’t. Once that shit is all over a wheel gun, with the ones I’ve tested, you can’t even get the cylinder open. Even something like mineral oil, which you’d think would actually help get the cylinder open actually gums it up and you’re already dealing with a cylinder release that’s next to impossible to operate.
So far, unless I find some [pardon the pun] “magic bullet” the NY reload is your best option if you gun is covered in blood and jams/goes dry/has any other malfunction because you simply cannot deal with it when the gun is slippery.
Patience is my middle name. I think my folks were expecting a girl. 🙂
What I gather from your writings so far is that no matter the system if you get injured and bleed on the weapon the weapon is rendered, at least partially, useless. Can’t reload or clear a jam.
All the more argument for a BUG.
I really wish they’d fix the system. Posting comments is a pain right now.
Cirillo was a member of the NYPD’s most elite unit. He had access to high quality autoloaders, but simply chose to carry a revolver as his primary. However, one of his backup guns (he carried 3 guns on duty) was a Walther .32.
After Thomas’ second gunfight, he did switch from revolvers to semi-autos. But he never changed his policy of relying on spare guns rather then spare ammo. In his 3rd and 4th gun battles, he used multiple autoloaders. His third is note-worthy in that his primary gun jammed, and he switched to another Sig autoloader instead of trying to clear it. Quite handy seeing as how in that one he was fighting with a robber who had just shot him in the neck at point-blank range. Clearing a jam would have been almost impossible in that situation.
Wasn’t it Wyatt Earp who said, “Any man in need of carrying a gun ought to carry two.”…?
I respectfully disagree.
I instruct firearms for my PD. I am lucky to work for a department that takes firearms training seriously, and our standard to maintain employment during qualifications is higher than the states, and we emphasize tactical training for patrol officers.
We get a pretty good cross section of firearms experience in our recruits. With a little training and lots of practice, I observe the following
A phase one stoppage that requires a simple tap rack takes under two seconds. It’s our standard. The standard for a magazine change is four seconds, but we have many, including myself, that can do it in about two.
Both of those options are faster than going to a secondary, especially if your secondary is concealed. Plus you have the factor of which hand to use. If you have it set up to draw with your dominant hand, the gun you already have needs to be discarded somewhere, taking up time and potentially leaving your firearm somewhere out of your span of control.
If you use your non dominant hand, now you find yourself in an unenviable position. You’re already in a fight, and your primary gun stopped working. Stress level through the roof. Now you have to effectively draw and engage a target with your non dominant hand.
There’s nothing wrong with carrying a backup. I do it at work. But if my gun goes down from running empty or a malfunction I’m going to fix it because I can do that much faster. Encouraging people to carry a secondary over a quicker alternative that will bring your presumably larger gun to bear is not smart.
Just my .02
“Some gun guys say they don’t need to be as accurate with their backup. It’s for use when the battle for survival gets up-close-and-personal.”
My first combat shooting was an ambush. I ambushed him with a single shot dart gun. Missed him clean from 6′ away while he stood there like a deer frozen in the headlights…then he recovered his wits, turned on me, and …missed. More competent combatants took us both out within 24 hours, and thus ended my first experience with college assassin games.
I’d done some practicing with that gun too, could shoot 8″ groups at 10′ with it in non-stress situations. And I could shoot a running woodchuck in the brain with a .22 rifle, which is a lot like shooting a bouncing walnut. Something about shooting a human, even with a toy, really freaked me out.
Huge difference between shooting a critter on the run, and shooting a thug shooting at you. The former is hunting. The latter is combat in war.
Never known many uniforms who carried a backup because they were already hauling 20-30 pounds of gear. The suits did because they often went concealed and carried baby guns as primaries.
I don’t see anything wrong with having a backup. Many a tv/movie star does. Of course, I’m not a movie star so I train to be the best that I can be with my primary weapon.
Last month I picked up a friend’s M&P Shield and sent a mag full downrange. I had never held or fired a Shield before that moment. I’m sure some luck was involved, but I produced a tighter group with this completely unfamiliar pistol than I usually produce with my own, somewhat larger EDC.
The point being, I don’t think it takes much training to learn to shoot a second gun with the accuracy required at defensive distance. Point it at the thug and pull the trigger. Repeat as necessary.
I tend to agree. If you can figure out how to turn off the safety–if it has one–you are good to go. Your grip is pretty much always the same, sight alignment is always the same. Presumably when you do this with an unfamiliar firearm, you won’t be reloading, so there is not need to know or understand the whole manual of arms. Moreover, I LIKE having different guns ans shooting all of them; why should I devote my time and energy to become ultra proficient at only one? Finally, I would assume that if you are doing a reload, you will be behind at least some kind of cover while you do so, not just standing in the open for two or three seconds being a perfect and stationary target; therefore it isn’t really necessary to learn to be faster than a three second change. Even an average shooter can do that without a whole lot of practice.
Couldn’t your backup gun be the same make/model as your primary? Or extremely similar (ex FNS 9 primary, FNS 9C backup)
Neither encouraging nor discouraging backup gun usage. But it always seems like the assumption is backup gun would be radically different from primary
That’s a part of the article which I found quite odd. One would think that a self-defense professional would be privy to the fact that a number of arms manufacturers make sub-compact versions of their larger offerings. Functionally, my 642 (secondary) is the same as my 686 (primary). They both even have the same sights, XS Big Dots.
I shoot my primary and my other primary and my backup just fine, thank you. I’m more than good enough for that and I don’t need to waste thousands on training from a fish-eating aquatic mammal who starts off with an insult and goes downhill from there.
As for Gonzo, I think what he shoots best is his mouth off or his foot.
I’m a big proponent of training and I think it helps armed citizens get an edge.
But let’s be real here. Training is way more important for those that go to armed conflicts and confrontations. Such as .mil and LE. The average citizen doesn’t NEED all that.
Especially for magazine changes. An average joe blow can find a decent YouTube video on mag changes, practice until he gets it down, and be proficient at doing it quickly.
So yes, my roundabout comment is that I agree with you. This guy seems like a blowhard who is trying to pimp his product. But saying things like “you aren’t good enough to shoot two guns” is absurd and insulting. He presumes his audience is a bunch of brand new untalented shooters. I instruct and I never put students down or presume anything of their abilities.
I wonder what elite training is required for this guy to simply mind his own God-damned business and let others do what works for them?
Now we know we can clear an action by dropping it on the ground, so yes, BUG is good, BUG is wise.
/sarc (for those needing)
If someone doesn’t care enough to get competent with a second gun, they probably aren’t competent with the first one.
As for me…I usually carry multiple guns. And multiple reloads. Everything in the carry rotation gets minimum 100 rounds weekly training, mostly movement drills from the holster.
Sure, maybe I’m not up to SEAL standards, but I don’t have to be. I just need to be better than the other guy and that’s half luck anyway.
Golly gee I haven’t had any super-duper tactical ninja training. Whatever shall I do? I don’t carry 2 guns( I COULD) but I do have a knife and Sabre Red pepper gel thingy. I think between the 3 I’ll get by😎
If the malf isn’t corrected with a tap-rack-flip, then that gun is hitting the floor and my BUG is coming out with both hands on it. (Although to be honest, this is if I had a BUG in the first place.)
Articles like this are one of the reasons I ignore articles like this.
“Articles like this are one of the reasons I ignore articles like this.”
^Articles like this are one of the reasons I read the comments section.
LoL
I’m sure he meant well.
Bless his heart…
A Navy Seal is trained to be the ambusher, not the ambushed. He is also trained to be part of a team; hence, the common terminology of Seal Team 6. Along with the arrogance and condescension. “I’m not good enough to use two different guns”? Also, “Did I master integrated combatives”? Lol. Talk about buzz word bingo.
Sorry there Mr. Operator that operates operationally, but in the real world of single law abiding people being ambushed, by possibly multiple attackers at close range; if it does get physical one can get their gun knocked out of their hand, so having a functioning 2nd gun that one can go to immediately as a back up is completely reasonable.
Also, if in a tussle, if one can’t access one gun in one location because of having a person grabbing at you, the other gun might be in a better position for access.
There are also multiple times people have been surprised and have been taken hostage, when they weren’t carrying their primary firearm. They might be also in a location where carrying a full sized conceal carry is not feasible. But they might be able to carry a pocket .380 as an everyday back up that will always be with them, and any gun is preferable to no gun at all.
Anyway, there are a lot of reasons why carrying a back up could make a difference, and not many arguments against that if one gun is reasonable in the first place, two guns would only give more options, so why not?
My back up gun works exactly like my primary.
I point them at the bad guy and pull the trigger.
What’d I do wrong?
I carry a primary and a back up both same caliber and same type of point and click interface, and a 5″ custom Steingass fixed blade very sharp knife. I operate in orange condition. I shoot weekly concentrating on presentation and shooting from unusual positions including from my back on the ground! I have had the pleasure to be trained by former SEALS, D boys and Marine Force Recon. I would never question their advice as they have stacked more bodies than I can imagine.
Bah! Hum bug! Advice is one thing, arrogance and elitism is another,, no matter how many bodies they may have stacked. This Jeff Gonzalez, is just another elitist, full of himself and his “integrated combatives” and his “team” mentality.
Incident after incident where average law abiding citizens have effectively used their firearms to defend themselves and others, even 12 year olds using their parents firearms, without injuring innocent by standers, unlike some New York cops we know and love.
All without “mastering integrated combatives”.
This individual gives no respect for those citizens that have shown themselves incredibly courageous and competent in their home grown “combatives” , even without their “masters” advice or training. So I give no respect back.
“….Sorry to break the bad news, but you’re not good enough to carry two guns.”
What an arrogant, self-rightious thing to say. He must be one of those west coast seals, go through buds with only two counseling breaks for bragging rights.
I carry three, so I must really suck.
Nah. New Yawk reload FTW!
“Considering the allocation of time, money and resources the average shooter has available, I believe they’re better off learning core skills rather than trying to master the art of switching — and running — two separate [presumably different] handguns.”
Generally I get this point but It doesn’t take ‘mastery’ to grab your secondary and pull the trigger. It’s a relatively simple action compared to trying to figure out a malfunction in the middle of a firefight with adrenaline pouring out your ears. Hell, you might be lucky to realize your gun isn’t working.
“Then again, as most ambushes occur at close range, a fixed blade carried off your weak side would be a faster and better solution for this situation…”
– What?? No one who has seen a knife fight- or the aftermath- would ever suggest that someone who has no serious training in using one prefer it over a gun. Even at close range.
I get the general points of this article and I actually am not a huge ‘BUG’ proponent (especially for conceal carry- open carry adds the element of having a secondary if you get disarmed) but just like the ‘press check are for losers’ article by the same author the writing just comes off as elitist. The general population of gun owners aren’t operating tactically at all times with thousands of rounds to spend downrange every month in live-fire movement drills.
Two things you can never have to much of in a DGU situation. Ammo and firearms. You never need them until you do. Armchair quarterbacking can get you killed. The only expert is you. Do what you feel is right for you. Just be sure there are no regrets at the end of the day.
A gun is a machine. I don’t care what name brand and how well maintained it is it’s still a machine. I once witnessed a brand new Ford pick up, so new it was getting gassed up for the first time, explode its starter when the proud new owner tried to start after the fill up.
A machine can break. Just ask Murphy. That bastard near got me killed more than once. Worse yet, your gun or your body, or both, can be damaged by hostile action and your only recourse for salvation may be the BUG.
Your story is believable. It was a Ford.
What gets me is that he says he gets mad that instructors say people can’t learn reloads and malfunction drills, but then says people can’t learn to shoot two different guns. He seems completely unaware of the hypocrisy.
Aaaahhhh, no…
First, let’s remember what that weapons manufacturing genius Tony Stark once said: “I say, is it too much to ask for both?”
Why not do core training on your primary weapon for malfunctions and reloads, and ALSO carry a BUG?
Second, do you really need to do exactly equal training on your primary and your BUG? The BUG is by definition for emergencies, so it would be advisable to do so. However, a somewhat lesser level of ability with the BUG should be acceptable. You only have so much time to train.
“Meeting performance standards is difficult enough with a primary. Try it with a smaller backup gun . . .”
Who said the BUG was smaller? Usually is – but doesn’t have to be. It could even be the SAME GUN as your primary gun – which means your core training carries right over. In fact, this should be the preferred scenario – especially if we’re talking about LEO duty guns.
“Do you need a secondary? Chances are you won’t.”
Just read a case yesterday about a cop who ran through all but four rounds of his ammo, after having shot a guy in more or less lethal areas FOURTEEN TIMES – who kept shooting at him until a difficult head shot brought him down.
Then there’s Carlos the Jackal… When he kidnapped the Middle East oil ministers back in the day, a security guard tried to take his gun away from and almost made it, too – but Carlos had a backup which he used to shoot the guard.
The first thing a lot of people do when you shove a gun in their face is to try to take the gun away from you. Some of them might well be able to do it. Why do you think they teach firearm retention?
Yes, you need a secondary regardless of what the statistics say. Carrying reloads is one way, but a malfunction of the primary means a BUG is necessary (assuming the malfunction can’t be easily cleared in the necessary time frame to stay in the fight – which can happen – Murphy rules.) If someone takes your primary away from you, a secondary is the ONLY thing that will help you.
“And if you do, chances are you’d spend just as much time fishing it out as you would performing a reload.
Entire depends on where and how your BUG is being carried. Assuming weak side carry, grabbing the gun and passing it to the primary firing is likely to be as fast or faster than a reload since it entails 1) the same gross motions, and 2) does not include relatively complicated multiple motions like inserting a magazine (let alone a strip or speedloader.)
The “New York Reload” was invented by New York City police officers back in the day when they were carrying revolvers and a second gun was recommended by the NYPD Patrol Guide for precisely these reasons.
“Begging the question: why are you carrying an unreliable firearm?”
Again…Murphy. Nothing is totally reliable. Also, you acknowledge the rare, but quite possible, gun which has sustained damage for one reason or another. Or again, a gun that has been taken away from you.
“a fixed blade carried off your weak side would be a faster and better solution for this situation.”
Unless the opponent is some distance away. And then here you have a “solution” which ALSO requires even more extensive training and practice to be effective than a BUG. Which takes as much or more time to learn than manipulating a BUG.
I say we can and should have all of these:
1) A reliable primary firearm with multiple reloads.
2) A reliable secondary firearm with multiple reloads, preferably of the same caliber, make and model as the primary.
3) A knife.
4) Optionally a third, smaller, reliable backup gun in any caliber for last ditch, or close-range, or insane situations.
5) Training and practice for all three (or 4) to the degree possible given life constraints.
There’s a rarely a need to make such decisions an “either-or” binary decision. Start with number 1, then level up over time. Simply deciding a BUG isn’t needed is bad decision making.
So…no…
Way to go Jeff. It really makes a lot of sense to intentially alienate someone you profess to be attempting to educate. You may be the greatest “integrated combative” expert since Steven Seagal 😜but here you sound more like Katy Sagal.
As a Navy SEAL do you ever in your entire military career ever go into a potentially hot AO with only one weapon?
This roided up douchebag needs to take some chill pills. Talk about holier than thou. How about this Mr. know it all: Go Fuck Yourself.
My primary gun is a Glock 17. My back up gun is a Glock 19 or Glock 26 depending on my attire. I hope I can figure out the complexity of my back up gun. I mean, it is just so damn different from my primary.
Writers have to write something.
clearing a jam during a gun fight can get you shot, a BUG can save lives, every one is different and different things work for different people. practice, practice, practice.
That wasn’t a very effective sales pitch.
It is faster to draw and fire a second gun then reload.. I still carry one or more speed loaders.
a Navy SEAL saying “maybe not” to carrying a backup gun makes no sense to me, since they they usually relegate a handgun to a backup gun with a rifle or carbine as primary.
“do as i say, not as i do.”
BTW, my first experience with SEALS was when one had a ND in our perimeter. impressive.
just because some dude can swim really well doesn’t necessarily infer expertise in all other areas of interest.
>>a fixed blade carried off your weak side would be a faster and better solution for this situation.
Sorry, but not buying. An Average Person unworthy to carry a backup piece because he/she can’t train enough (as asserted in the article) is even less likely to invest time, let alone money, in training with bladed weapon. And doing anything useful with a knife in weak hand (short of surprise stab into assailant’s liver as he goes close-and-personal) requires training.
Not to mention the whole “bad guys use knives, good guys use fists and guns” thing.
Certainly I am not an opponent to BUK (back-up-knife), but overrating it is unwise. JG is former SEAL, and without doubt possesses enough athletic ability and coordination to make it work; not every CCW user is so lucky.
Guns are tools. I have a metric crap-ton of tools in the garage, each with its own purpose. My BUG has a purpose as well, outside the realm of my primary carry piece. I keep a North American Arms 22mag revolver in my front pocket. It also happens to be the place where I keep my keys. I drive a desirable vehicle for theft. If someone were to come up on me from behind as I were approaching my vehicle I’d probably not have time to deploy the main weapon, but with my hand already in my pocket for “keys” the micro-revolver can be raised and discharged at bad-breath distances very effectively and practically unseen by the bad guy before it were too late. Sure, it’s “only” a 22mag, but it will zip right through bone and gray matter at that distance, and has a great chance to render a BG permanently harmless.
I’ll keep the BUG, TYVM.
good arguments
as with just about everything in life, it comes down to a case by case basis. some can, some can’t/won’t.
“Did you master integrated combatives to counter an ambush?”
He’s got us there, guys.
The author is as full of hooey as Sam Hoober.