The .45 ACP Glock 21 Gen 4 Defender Scott_PP_Article_2-13-15 Scott W. Wagner | February 13, 2015 | 25 Comments inShare Recently, a Lieutenant at my police department was interested in downsizing from the Gen 4 Glock 21 he had been carrying on duty for several months, having supersized previously from his smaller .40 caliber Glock 23. While he liked the fact that the Gen 4 Glock 21 held 13 rounds of potent .45 ACP ammo in each magazine, he missed the somewhat lighter weight, controllability, and more compact dimensions of his old G23. I happened to have a Glock 32 in .357 SIG caliber that I’d carried on the SWAT team available. Having less recoil but more power than the .40 in terms of kinetic energy, he decided to trade after giving it a test drive. I ended up with the like-new “hardly ever been driven” G21 as a result. The G21 is a large handgun. The Gen 4 model comes with a somewhat smaller frame than the original version and includes two backstraps that can be added onto the existing frame to increase the grip girth to medium and large sizes. For my medium-sized hands, the out-of-the-box small size worked well enough, but it required the addition of an extended slide release to really make it fully functional for me. My G21 came equipped with factory three-dot night sights, which makes for a precise sight picture under daylight conditions, and of course assists with finding the sights for the first shot fired in a string in dark conditions. The G21 weighs in heavier than other full-sized Glocks at 29.3 ounces, but is still relatively lightweight for a .45. By way of comparison, the average full-sized 1911 weights in at 36 ounces, which gives the 1911 nearly a half pound more recoil-absorbing weight. I had in my possession some Winchester T-Series standard velocity JHP load. Even though this is a standard pressure round, it is still quite stout, with a distinctly higher muzzle velocity than standard .45 ACP ball ammo. Using a 230-grain JHP bullet, the published ballistics claim a muzzle velocity of 935 fps, with a muzzle energy of 446 foot-pounds. After my experience shooting the G21, I would advise new shooters to avoid +P ammo (or other loads in this power range). I began the test at a distance of 30 feet using a standard handgun qualification silhouette target. The Winchester T-Series ammo was attention getting, but not painful to shoot by any stretch. However, the larger-than-standard Glock grip circumference made the G21 harder for me to hold onto. I needed a firmer than standard grip (at least for me) for control and tight groups. My first six-shot group strung out a bit to the left, following the torque of the pistol. By tightening my grip, I was able to shrink my second six-shot string at 30 feet down considerably, keeping those six rounds within the 8-inch center circle. I moved back to 100 yards. Taking what I thought was a firm enough two-handed grip, I launched six rounds downrange from a standing position. I had five in the left side of the target, all within the silhouette, and one entirely off the paper. Not bad, but I wanted to see if more concentration would center the groups up. I tightened up and launched seven rounds downrange. I was rewarded by finding all seven rounds in the silhouette, with two in the aforementioned center ring, four centered in the body cavity, and one round at the lower left inside corner of the silhouette. I was much more pleased with the second string. Utilizing my new Glock as a carry or home-defense gun would require one little adjustment—different carry ammo. The Sig Elite 200-grain JHP .45 launches that lighter weight bullet at a more sedate 918 fps with a muzzle energy of 374 foot pounds. The Sig Elite ammo gave excellent performance in modeling clay, but with more controllability. The Glock 21 turned in great performance at the range. Just hold it firmly and watch what you feed it. Next week I will talk about carrying it concealed. Sources: Glock: us.glock.com Winchester Ammunition: www.winchester.com Sig Elite Ammunition: www.sigsauer.com

A Word About Warning Shots

inShare  Firing a warning shot is one of the worst ideas ever put forth in the area of self-defense training. You are personally responsible for every projectile that leaves your firearm. If you fire a warning shot blindly into the air, you have no idea where that round is going to impact. What if it hits an innocent person? How will you explain to a prosecutor that you were in imminent danger if you didn’t feel the need to fire at your attacker?
Don’t fire warning shots. If you feel like you should give a verbal warning, fine, do that. But do not be firing shots unless they are well aimed at someone you have clearly identified as an immediate threat.


Warning shots put bullets in places you don’t want them to go. If you’re going to fire a round, fire AT the imminent deadly threat, and keep firing until that threat stops. Don’t shoot anywhere else.
Don’t. As in don’t fire warning shots. Ever. Shoot at your attacker and keep shooting until the threat stops.

Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration

 HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge in South Texas has temporarily blocked President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders. Related Stories Judge who blocked immigration action had criticized policy Associated Press Texas judge blocks Obama plan to protect undocumented immigrants Reuters A federal judge just put the brakes on Obama’s immigration actions Vox.com The Texas Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Immigration Executive Actions Will Be Thrown Out -- If the Judge Follows the Law Huffington Post Judge delays Obama immigration order AFP U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's decision late Monday puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare from deportation as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states would "suffer irreparable harm in this case." "The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action. In a statement early Tuesday, the White House defended the executive orders issued in November as within the president's legal authority, saying the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can establish priorities in enforcing immigration laws. "The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision," the statement said. An appeal would be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. View gallery In this Feb. 4, 2015, file photo, President Barack … In this Feb. 4, 2015, file photo, President Barack Obama meets with a group of "Dreamers" in the Ova … The first of Obama's orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19. Joaquin Guerra, political director of Texas Organizing Project, called the ruling a "temporary setback." "We will continue getting immigrants ready to apply for administrative relief," he said in a statement. The nonprofit says it promotes social and economic equality for low to moderate income Texans. The coalition of states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power, and that his executive actions would be difficult to undo once immigrants started to apply for deferred action. They also say Obama's order would force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision a "victory for the rule of law in America" in a statement late Monday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who led the state into the lawsuit when he was the state's attorney general, said Hanen's decision "rightly stops the President's overreach in its tracks." Hanen, who's been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn't known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In that case, Hanen suggested that Homeland Security should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border. Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama's actions by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama's executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate do not have the 60-vote majority needed to advance most legislation. Among those supporting Obama's executive order is a group of 12 mostly liberal states, including Washington and California, as well as the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with Hanen in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest. A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.

Bloomberg's Comments Add to a Long Tradition of Racially-Charged Gun Control Rhetoric

Bloomberg's Comments Add to a Long Tradition of Racially-Charged Gun Control Rhetoric

Bankrolling ceaseless endeavors to dictate what Americans can eat and how they can defend themselves, all while exhibiting a devout support for the surveillance state, ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is widely recognized as the country's foremost paternalist. However, recent comments suggest that his efforts on this front incorporate a disturbing racial component.

Legislation Introduced to Break Administrative Choke Hold on Firearm and Ammunition Vendors

Legislation Introduced to Break Administrative Choke Hold on Firearm and Ammunition Vendors

In January, we reported on encouraging news that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had taken steps to reassure banks that they are not categorically prohibited nor discouraged from servicing customers in the firearms and ammunition industries. Of course, the very fact that this should be considered newsworthy demonstrates just how bad the politically-motivated abuses of federal banking regulators, including but not limited to FDIC and Department of Justice (DOJ), had become. The supposed "enforcement" program at the center of this scandal, Operation Choke Point (OPC), has been the subject of considerable congressional attention. Recently, bills were introduced that seek to put a definitive end to the administration’s squeeze of what it considers "immoral" businesses operating within the law.

Remaining Anti-Gunners in U.S. Senate Renew Push for Gun Control

Remaining Anti-Gunners in U.S. Senate Renew Push for Gun Control

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), have introduced their Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (S. 407 and H.R. 752, respectively), in yet another attempt to ban magazines that accept more than 10 rounds.  Similar legislation has been introduced in previous Congresses, and has repeatedly failed since the expiration of the Clinton “large” magazine ban in 2004.

NEWS

NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill

NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry BillOn behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has announced its support for S. 498--The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015--which was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).  The legislation would respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.