Dear Steve,

I would like to know what you and your readers think about the following hierarchy of values. My intention for writing this was to begin thinking about how to choose the ‘right firearm’. Clearly this is a complex question that is particularly context specific. By creating a “hierarchy of values” one can narrow the field of options based on one’s needs, effectively filtering the sea of opinions relating to purchasing a weapon. I am also curious to see where your readers disagree and to how they would reorder or add to the list below.

Kind regards,

BB

Hierarchy of values for the practical-tactical firearm:

1. Reliability – a priori, reliability is the first function of the firearm. The value of reliability can be represented by the need to employ a firearm under inversely optimal conditions. That is to say that if you really need your gun to work, and the environmental conditions are really bad, then the reliability of the firearm becomes really important.

2. Maneuverability – This can be defined as the ability to perform a movement in order to secure an advantage, i.e., getting your firearm on target faster than your target can get his firearm on you, and not just once, but repeatedly. Side note: this is not an inherent characteristic of the weapon, rather the relationship between the shooter and his or her weapon within a given environment.

3. Lethality – Ultimately, the firearm is a tool designed to deliver lethal force. Its value is represented by the capacity and efficiency with which lethal force can be delivered.

4. Accuracy – As tools the utility of firearms is confined by the niche which they were intended to fulfill, as the accuracy of a weapon is only relevant within the scope of its intended use. This can be represented as the likelihood to strike a given target within a likely range of engagement as intended for the firearm in question. For example, the accuracy of a pocket .45 should not be compared to that of a .45 competition/match 1911 as they were designed for fundamentally different applications. On the other hand, one could compare various “battle rifles” (e.g., AR vs. FAL) regardless of caliber as their field of intended use distinctly overlaps.

5. Cost – Assuming the above values are met, the next factor should be the cost to purchase, operate and train with the firearm. While one might assume that “you get what you pay for”, this is only true up to a certain point and often excludes the added value of training, i.e., range time, and its role of improving one’s ability to master one’s weapon.