Those of you who have done some reading about self-defense, particularly about self-defense products, may have encountered some of the extremely pessimistic views some self-defense experts have about self-defense products in general, pepper spray included.
These articles generally point out the flaws of the various types of self-defense weapons in particular, e.g., stun guns require you and your assailant to be a little too intimate, pepper sprays require you to aim, etc. They usually go on to make their real main point, which is that none of these products can replace awareness of one's surroundings and intelligent behavior. On that latter point, these pessimistic self-defense experts are quite right. Consider the ultimate self defense product, a device with a single button, and all you had to do was press the button and any assailant would vanish into the ether without a need for aiming. This super-weapon would still do you no good if it's buried deep in a large purse, tangled up with something else in your pocket, sitting next to your bed at home, etc.
We law-abiding citizens do need to realize that criminals are not completely stupid, and they are also lazy. Confronting you verbally and announcing their intentions could lead to your defending yourself effectively, which would be all too much work. Instead, a sneak attack is more likely. No matter what weapon you have, if it is not in hand, and even then, if you are not aware of your surroundings, you will have neither the time nor the ability to use your self-defense product effectively.
So by all means, take this truth from what these experts say: first and foremost you must be aware of your surroundings, and you must be proactive in the deployment of your self-defense product. When walking through a dark parking lot or down a dark street, look around, and have your product in your hand. The virtue of this sort of behavior is twofold. First, you obviously will be better able to defend yourself in the case of an attack. If you notice a suspicious character approaching you, and you have your product at the ready, then you can deploy it at the first sign of trouble. Second, and more importantly, remember what I said about criminals being lazy? Simply by being aware of your surroundings you have made yourself a less attractive target. People who are looking around are much more difficult to surprise than someone making a beeline for their car while looking at their phone.
Having agreed with these pessimistic experts so far, I must now part ways with at least some of them. Some of them implicitly, if not explicitly, discourage the carrying of self-defense products because they tend to cause more problems than they solve. Instead, they encourage practicing awareness and learning to use your body as a weapon. While both of these are incredibly useful skills, especially the former, I can't advocate doing this INSTEAD OF carrying a self-defense product. For one thing, you should be practicing awareness anyway; practicing awareness does not preclude carrying a self-defense product. For another, there are many drawbacks to focusing on one's body as their only self-defense weapon.
First, one's body suffers from a magnified version of the problem that faces stun guns, kubotans, and the like, in that it requires you and your assailant to be in very close proximity. What's worse, your body, even when well trained, is still slightly less effective than your body PLUS something like a kubotan or expandable baton. all else being held equal. I can do far more damage with a steel baton than Bas Rutten can with his fist; that's just simple physics, and is the case despite Bas Rutten's being one of the most well-trained strikers on the planet.
Second, to use one's body effectively does require a good deal of training. The average person simply isn't skilled enough to use their body as an effective weapon. To get to the point where one is skilled enough can take years of intensive training, and that's just to get to a point where you're still not as effective as I would be with a baton and minimal training. The return on investment is just not high enough. That is all true without even considering the fact that large segments of the population, indeed, the very segments of the population most likely to need to engage in self-defense, are simply not large enough/fit enough to use their body as a self-defense weapon. After all, a thug looking to lift a wallet off someone is probably not going to pick an athletic looking 6' 3", 220 pound male. He'll go after a 5'4", 120 pound female instead. Here I'd like to point out that there are weight classes in combat sports for a reason. Beyond a certain point, weight discrepancies will all but zero out the contribution of skill to the outcome of a fight.
As a case in point, I once took a kung-fu/self-defense course in college (the things we do to get our 'physical activity' credits), and for one of the lessons we focused on techniques for breaking someone's hold on a wrist or arm. As you might expect, during the class we had to practice these techniques on each other. I made the mistake of thinking that we were supposed to pretend this was real life, and gripped my training partner (a female, although not a petite one) on the wrist as firmly as I could. I'm a fairly large guy, and the difference in strength was just too much; the technique just wouldn't work, so the instructor told me not to grip so hard. I know, I know, the technique was probably not so well thought out, but still, the point stands: technique and skill only counts for so much. That's why there are weight classes in combat sports, and why men and women compete separately: size matters, and it matters a LOT.
The moral of the story is that relying on hand-to-hand self-defense is incredibly risky business. Yes, awareness of one's surroundings is primary, and yes, if possible, running should always be preferred, but for those situations in which a confrontation does arise, or an attack takes place, I am quite reasonable to want something other than my body to use as a weapon.
This all basically boils down to the following question: assuming that I am paying attention to my surroundings as I should, what self-defense weapon will allow me to escape unharmed in the highest percentage of cases? Note that I am not asking what self-defense weapon will make me invincible; obviously nothing can do that. Even if you wear Kevlar and carry an AR-15 in plain sight, you would still be overwhelmed in any number of scenarios. So, it's not an adequate argument against carrying some self-defense weapon to say "Oh, but in situation X, what good is that going to do you?" To put it bluntly, there will always be situations where you are just screwed despite your best efforts. Your goal is simply to minimize these chances at the lowest cost to your quality of life and wallet.
Having said that, your body, kubotans, brass knuckles, stun guns, and knives all suffer from what I consider to be a fatal flaw: they simply require you to be too close to your assailant. I have a handy rule of thumb when it comes to choosing self-defense products: if you wouldn't choose it for defense from a bear attack, don't bother at all. No one would choose a knife for use against a bear, because by the time you're close enough to use it, the bear's close enough to maul you. Even if you kill the bear (unlikely), you will be seriously injured/killed yourself. That, my friends, is the key. Choice of a self-defense weapon is not about how much damage you can do to your assailant. Knives, kubotans, and brass knuckles are all more than capable of outright killing people; in self-defense, though, we are concerned with preserving our well-being, not diminishing that of others. I might be able to kill all of my assailants with a handy sharp knife, but if one of them is using a knife as well, an unlucky cut could leave me dead as well. That my assailants are also dead does me no good. The point in self-defense, then is to avoid harm, and being able to use your weapon at range contributes heavily to that.
The problem with guns, as I mentioned very briefly early in this blog, is that they are illegal to carry in many areas, and their use, even in justified self-defense situations, often comes with a heavy legal price. What's more, even when you can conceal carry, you can't legally walk to your car with your gun in hand; again, if you don't have your weapon in hand, it's going to be useless in most self-defense situations. It just takes too long to draw a weapon even when it's easily accessible. Also, to stay practiced enough to shoot your handgun accurately under stress is quite expensive. Handgun ammunition, especially in the calibers that are actually worth using for self-defense, is far from cheap, so the number of rounds you have to go through to stay in top form is just not practical for many people.
Quality pepper spray in a cone fog has many virtues that make it about as good of a self-defense weapon as any we ordinary folk will have access to for a while. First, pepper sprays are relatively cheap, so we don't have to worry about breaking the bank. Second, there's not a whole lot of skill needed to spray out a fog in someone's general direction. Third, quality pepper sprays are nearly instantly incapacitating. The moment it gets in your eyes, you can't see, and the fogs also cause acute respiratory distress. Fourth, with fogs, you can just spray out a fog between you and your assailants and run. The fog will linger, so chasing you has its disadvantages. Finally, since capsaicin doesn't cause permanent damage, you don't have to worry about using excessive force or getting sued for wrongful death.
In summary, be aware of your surroundings, keep your weapon (preferably a Fox Labs cone fog) in hand during at-risk activities like walking to your car at night, be prepared to run before engaging, and if you must engage, engage only enough to allow you to run. This is self-defense in a nutshell.
With this monstrous post, I am probably going to retire this ocsprayreviews blog. I had expected it to take much more time to test the various sprays, but now I've pretty much run out of material. What will likely happen is that I will start a more general purpose blog, and will export these posts to that blog.
'Till next time!
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Final assessments
I had promised in a previous post that I would do a second round of testing, comparing the current front-runner, Fox Labs, against some comparable units. In particular, I had wanted to test some of Sabre's highest strength formulation, since what I had acquired previously was actually half the strength of their strongest formulation. I also wanted to try some of the units from guardpd.com, since they give extremely complete information on all their products. Alas, this second round of testing will not be happening, at least not for some time.
What eventually dissuaded me from going for a second round of testing was the subject of my previous post: responsiveness to customers. The following is a list of the manufacturers I contacted and the state of their response:
Fox Labs: Responses were timely, and I got a phone call with the owner of the company. High marks!
Sabre (SEC): They don't have an email listed on their website, and my phone calls (there were 2), have not been returned. On this score they're not even in the same league with Fox Labs.
GuardPD: I received a reply in a fairly timely fashion, but the reply was completely disjointed and did not answer any of the questions I asked in my email. I had asked some very specific questions in my email, and the "answers" I got were less informative than my question! It is possible (I hope this is the case, actually) that there was some sort of language barrier, because the English was atrocious, so perhaps my questions were simply not understood. Either way, despite the timely response, they too score well below Fox Labs.
UDAP: This was perhaps the most disappointing of all of them. They seem to be a reputable company that puts out quality products and provides accurate information about their products, and their maximum strength formulation is listed as incredibly potent. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear back from them. I sent an initial email over a week ago, and when after a week I hadn't heard back from them, I forwarded it to them again. Still no response. The complete lack of responsiveness to customers is a shame, since the company seemed so solid otherwise.
At any rate, since Fox Labs was leading the pack in terms of testing anyway, and went on to do resoundingly well in the customer responsiveness department, I have to say that I will be going with Fox Labs for my pepper spray, and it is my recommendation to all of you as well!
What eventually dissuaded me from going for a second round of testing was the subject of my previous post: responsiveness to customers. The following is a list of the manufacturers I contacted and the state of their response:
Fox Labs: Responses were timely, and I got a phone call with the owner of the company. High marks!
Sabre (SEC): They don't have an email listed on their website, and my phone calls (there were 2), have not been returned. On this score they're not even in the same league with Fox Labs.
GuardPD: I received a reply in a fairly timely fashion, but the reply was completely disjointed and did not answer any of the questions I asked in my email. I had asked some very specific questions in my email, and the "answers" I got were less informative than my question! It is possible (I hope this is the case, actually) that there was some sort of language barrier, because the English was atrocious, so perhaps my questions were simply not understood. Either way, despite the timely response, they too score well below Fox Labs.
UDAP: This was perhaps the most disappointing of all of them. They seem to be a reputable company that puts out quality products and provides accurate information about their products, and their maximum strength formulation is listed as incredibly potent. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear back from them. I sent an initial email over a week ago, and when after a week I hadn't heard back from them, I forwarded it to them again. Still no response. The complete lack of responsiveness to customers is a shame, since the company seemed so solid otherwise.
At any rate, since Fox Labs was leading the pack in terms of testing anyway, and went on to do resoundingly well in the customer responsiveness department, I have to say that I will be going with Fox Labs for my pepper spray, and it is my recommendation to all of you as well!
Friday, February 10, 2012
The hidden side of choosing a pepper spray
So far on this blog, I've spent a decent bit of text talking about the science of pepper sprays and the results of my subjective tests of various pepper sprays. However, when it comes to choosing a pepper spray, there is an aspect worth consideration that is only indirectly related to anything about the performance of the spray itself, and that is the disposition of the company towards its customers.
Some brands of pepper spray are completely manufactured by a single, visible company (Sabre and Fox Labs are two good examples of this). Others don't seem to be tied to anything resembling a company at all (Wildfire is a good example of this; it just seems to be a brand name on a bunch of canisters of sprays floating about the internet).
Now, in general, visibility of a company is a splendid thing. With visibility comes (usually) accountability. After all, there's a company to point our fingers at. That's not always the case, though. Sometimes a large, visible company is big enough that they don't care if one person complains to them.
So, with that said, I figured I'd write up a little post that compared the major manufacturers on this score. I have sent out inquiries to most of these companies, and they have had quite different levels of (non)response.
Fox Labs was amazingly responsive. I sent an email asking some questions about quality control and the like, and within a day I had a phone call with the owner of the company! He was a little pushy/salesy, but I suppose that's to be expected. Still, a response from the owner of the company to little old me? High marks for that!
On the other hand, Security Equipment Corporation (the company behind Sabre Red), has yet to respond to the phone inquiry I made regarding the potency of their sprays (I mentioned that I had made this call in the post where I reviewed three of their products). Perhaps this was just bad luck, but when combined with the fact that they don't even list an email on their site, I'm a little underwhelmed by their customer service.
UDAP has yet to respond to an email I sent 4 days ago, so I'm losing a little faith in them as well.
I just sent an email to guardpd, so we'll see how responsive they are.
Some brands of pepper spray are completely manufactured by a single, visible company (Sabre and Fox Labs are two good examples of this). Others don't seem to be tied to anything resembling a company at all (Wildfire is a good example of this; it just seems to be a brand name on a bunch of canisters of sprays floating about the internet).
Now, in general, visibility of a company is a splendid thing. With visibility comes (usually) accountability. After all, there's a company to point our fingers at. That's not always the case, though. Sometimes a large, visible company is big enough that they don't care if one person complains to them.
So, with that said, I figured I'd write up a little post that compared the major manufacturers on this score. I have sent out inquiries to most of these companies, and they have had quite different levels of (non)response.
Fox Labs was amazingly responsive. I sent an email asking some questions about quality control and the like, and within a day I had a phone call with the owner of the company! He was a little pushy/salesy, but I suppose that's to be expected. Still, a response from the owner of the company to little old me? High marks for that!
On the other hand, Security Equipment Corporation (the company behind Sabre Red), has yet to respond to the phone inquiry I made regarding the potency of their sprays (I mentioned that I had made this call in the post where I reviewed three of their products). Perhaps this was just bad luck, but when combined with the fact that they don't even list an email on their site, I'm a little underwhelmed by their customer service.
UDAP has yet to respond to an email I sent 4 days ago, so I'm losing a little faith in them as well.
I just sent an email to guardpd, so we'll see how responsive they are.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Fox Labs (2% OC, 5,300,000 SHU)
I finally got to test out a unit from Fox Labs, and I must say, it did not disappoint. The canisters themselves seemed to be of a high quality, and the spray pattern was easily the best of all the units I've tested so far. It manages a decent cone fog with a range of a little more than 10 feet, by the looks of it. Of course, this unit is also the largest I've tested (4 oz), so I would expect a little more power.
The formula itself was also impressive. In terms of sensation it performed similarly to the Wildfire I tested, strangely enough. The two of them were the only ones that managed enough of a burn on my forearm to be painful (along the lines of a bad sunburn). The respiratory effects were also quite pronounced, although that was to expected, since it sprays out in a fog.
All in all, the Fox Labs 4 oz unit is easily the best product I've tried so far. It's tied with Wildfire for effectiveness on forearm skin, but the manufacturing quality is higher, and unlike Wildfire, there's an actual company with a website and a physical location I can go to for answers, complaints (not likely), requests for information, etc.
In the next month or so, I plan on acquiring several more sprays and performing another round of testing, this time of similarly sized units that are supposed to be the best the manufacturer has to offer.
The lineup will be as follows:
Fox Labs 5.3, 4 oz (current best)
Sabre Red, 4.4 oz (the real, 1.33% stuff this time)
UDAP Mugger Fogger
Guardian Protective Devices 10%, 4 oz
Possibles:
Wildfire, 4 oz (As I said, I'm still somewhat tempted to give this a shot)
Defense Technology 1.3% major capsaicinoids (I'm not sure if they sell to non-law enforcement yet)
Until next time!
The formula itself was also impressive. In terms of sensation it performed similarly to the Wildfire I tested, strangely enough. The two of them were the only ones that managed enough of a burn on my forearm to be painful (along the lines of a bad sunburn). The respiratory effects were also quite pronounced, although that was to expected, since it sprays out in a fog.
All in all, the Fox Labs 4 oz unit is easily the best product I've tried so far. It's tied with Wildfire for effectiveness on forearm skin, but the manufacturing quality is higher, and unlike Wildfire, there's an actual company with a website and a physical location I can go to for answers, complaints (not likely), requests for information, etc.
In the next month or so, I plan on acquiring several more sprays and performing another round of testing, this time of similarly sized units that are supposed to be the best the manufacturer has to offer.
The lineup will be as follows:
Fox Labs 5.3, 4 oz (current best)
Sabre Red, 4.4 oz (the real, 1.33% stuff this time)
UDAP Mugger Fogger
Guardian Protective Devices 10%, 4 oz
Possibles:
Wildfire, 4 oz (As I said, I'm still somewhat tempted to give this a shot)
Defense Technology 1.3% major capsaicinoids (I'm not sure if they sell to non-law enforcement yet)
Until next time!
Monday, January 9, 2012
Wildfire Keychain Unit Review (18% OC, 3,000,000 SHU)
I was (and still am) a bit suspicious about Wildfire. They don’t seem to have their own website, and there are no product numbers, expiration dates, or any other sorts of labels on their products (at least, I’ve read that about their other products, and it was true of the keychain product I tested). I’ve also read very mixed reviews of the products, usually pertaining to manufacturing quality (leaks, misfires, etc.). Right off the bat these fears were given some credibility when I received the product of theirs that I was going to test, the .5 oz keychain version. The packaging was horrendous, and seemed of very poor quality. Specifically, that ubiquitous cardboard-ish backing on such packages was very flimsy, and the “hard” plastic shell was not hard at all. It was much more like plastic wrap than the sorts of hard plastic shells you see in so many packages. As a result, I got a bunch of plastic wrap stuck in the keychain, which was quite annoying. Still, I retained hope for the product itself.
Their .5 oz keychain product sprays a very dark, basically brown narrow stream (I assume that’s because of the high OC percentage). On the forearm it behaved similarly to Sabre’s P-22-OC, leaving a noticeable, persistent burn. The burn is best described as the sort you feel when you have a bad sunburn (incidentally, one site I found said the "bad sunburn" feeling is caused by mild products, but the "bad sunburn" feeling is the worst I've felt, and I've tried 3 Sabre Red products, one UDAP product, and this Wildfire product so far. It may be that my choice of test location, forearm, skews things a bit).
Its effects on the respiratory system also seemed quite potent. I took one deep breath near the spray site on my forearm, and it induced a couple coughs, a sneeze, and some burning in my nose for a minute or so. In terms of effects it trumps any of the Sabre products I tested, and is probably the best all around I've tried. UDAP's Clip on Commander was more potent on the respiratory system, but it was a cone fog and this is a stream.
In self defense appropriate sizes, though, it only seems to come in gel or stream patterns, which is a tad annoying. I prefer a cone or a fog to exacerbate the respiratory effects. Still, this is a solid spray; it just seems the packaging/marketing is really subpar for an otherwise good product.
P.S. It seems that if you go to the right site (tbotech.com is one), you can get the Wildfire in a fogger. It performed well enough in the test of the formula that I'm almost tempted to get one, but the manufacturing issues still scare me.
Their .5 oz keychain product sprays a very dark, basically brown narrow stream (I assume that’s because of the high OC percentage). On the forearm it behaved similarly to Sabre’s P-22-OC, leaving a noticeable, persistent burn. The burn is best described as the sort you feel when you have a bad sunburn (incidentally, one site I found said the "bad sunburn" feeling is caused by mild products, but the "bad sunburn" feeling is the worst I've felt, and I've tried 3 Sabre Red products, one UDAP product, and this Wildfire product so far. It may be that my choice of test location, forearm, skews things a bit).
Its effects on the respiratory system also seemed quite potent. I took one deep breath near the spray site on my forearm, and it induced a couple coughs, a sneeze, and some burning in my nose for a minute or so. In terms of effects it trumps any of the Sabre products I tested, and is probably the best all around I've tried. UDAP's Clip on Commander was more potent on the respiratory system, but it was a cone fog and this is a stream.
In self defense appropriate sizes, though, it only seems to come in gel or stream patterns, which is a tad annoying. I prefer a cone or a fog to exacerbate the respiratory effects. Still, this is a solid spray; it just seems the packaging/marketing is really subpar for an otherwise good product.
P.S. It seems that if you go to the right site (tbotech.com is one), you can get the Wildfire in a fogger. It performed well enough in the test of the formula that I'm almost tempted to get one, but the manufacturing issues still scare me.
UDAP Clip on Commander Review (15% OC, 3,000,000 SHU)
From what I’ve read, UDAP is quite a reputable company, and everything about my experience so far confirms this. They have their own website, are quite clear about how pepper sprays do and do not work, and the product I received was well-packaged. I ordered their Clip on Commander spray.
It sprays a narrow cone fog pattern, and probably doesn’t have an effective range of more than 5-6 feet, if that. Actually, when I first opened the product, the trigger on the nozzle wouldn’t depress much at all, and it shot a couple of 6 inch bursts. Once the trigger got broken in, it shot cone fog patterns about 5-6 feet.
The effect on my forearm skin was somewhere between Sabre’s keychain product (nonexistent) and the Sabre pocket unit. That is, I could discern a sensation of burning, but honestly I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it if I hadn’t been looking for it.
The respiratory effects are a WHOLLY different animal . Smelling the spray site on my forearm induced coughing and sneezing for a couple minutes, and even now (15 minutes later) my nose is still burning. Since I prefer weighting respiratory effects over skin effects (an assailant that can’t open his eyes is one thing; one that can’t breathe is another entirely), this is likely the cream of my limited crop so far.
However, since it is well known and common sense that a fog will affect the respiratory system more, I’m not sure how much of this sprays advantage in respiratory effects is due to the formulation of the spray itself and how much is due to the cone pattern. I have some Fox Labs cone spray units on the way, so that should give me a good comparison point. My intuition suggests that it’s the fog delivery system doing most of the work, though. Also, this is the only unit I’ve tested that had the so-called “cop top” design, and I really prefer that to the other designs where you have to rotate the nozzle to make it spray-ready.
It sprays a narrow cone fog pattern, and probably doesn’t have an effective range of more than 5-6 feet, if that. Actually, when I first opened the product, the trigger on the nozzle wouldn’t depress much at all, and it shot a couple of 6 inch bursts. Once the trigger got broken in, it shot cone fog patterns about 5-6 feet.
The effect on my forearm skin was somewhere between Sabre’s keychain product (nonexistent) and the Sabre pocket unit. That is, I could discern a sensation of burning, but honestly I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it if I hadn’t been looking for it.
The respiratory effects are a WHOLLY different animal . Smelling the spray site on my forearm induced coughing and sneezing for a couple minutes, and even now (15 minutes later) my nose is still burning. Since I prefer weighting respiratory effects over skin effects (an assailant that can’t open his eyes is one thing; one that can’t breathe is another entirely), this is likely the cream of my limited crop so far.
However, since it is well known and common sense that a fog will affect the respiratory system more, I’m not sure how much of this sprays advantage in respiratory effects is due to the formulation of the spray itself and how much is due to the cone pattern. I have some Fox Labs cone spray units on the way, so that should give me a good comparison point. My intuition suggests that it’s the fog delivery system doing most of the work, though. Also, this is the only unit I’ve tested that had the so-called “cop top” design, and I really prefer that to the other designs where you have to rotate the nozzle to make it spray-ready.
Sabre Red Reviewed
This company has an excellent reputation, and also sports one of the highest (OC% * SHU) products on the market (while OC% * SHU is by no means an infallible guide to the perceived hotness or effectiveness of sprays, until the industry becomes regulated and is required to post contents of each of the capsaicinoids, it’s about as good as we can manage as an indicator). I tried three of their products.
The first was the basic black keychain product, HC-14-OC on Sabre’s web site, although to save money I got it as part of their product SRU-HAPK. It shoots a very narrow stream with a short (perhaps 6-8 feet) range. Spraying it on my forearm resulted in no noticeable burning sensation, and taking a deep breath near the site on my forearm resulted in no respiratory distress at all. I’m sure this product would still be most uncomfortable and perhaps quite painful if it gets directly into the eyes, but especially with a short range stream product like this one, relying on a direct hit to the eyes is not my cup of tea. Also, unlike Sabre’s other products, this one has no labeling indicating potency (it does indicate expiration). That’s a minor quibble, especially for a keychain product, but overall I am not thrilled by this product.
The next product was their Pepper Foam Home Self-Defense Spray, model # PFHM-80. It sprays in a very wide, shotgun type pattern that really couldn’t be that effective beyond 6 feet, in my estimation. It generated some burning on the forearm, but not much. When I took a deep breath above the spray on my forearm, it induced some coughing, but the effect seems to be limited to immediately after the spray is launched. I sprayed some into a bowl and inhaled a minute later and there were no effects at all. Altogether this seems to be a more effective product than the keychain version, with a wider spray pattern and slightly hotter formula, but it’s still not a product I’m particularly excited by.
The next was their pocket unit, P-22-OC. It sprayed a narrow stream, perhaps a little farther than the keychain product. It generated noticeable, long-lasting, but mild burning on my forearm, but I never experienced any effects from taking deep breaths near the spray site. If you can get it on the eyes, this would definitely work, but again, you’d have to get it on the eyes.
One last curious note about the above is in order. While Sabre markets their Sabre Red formulation as being a 10% OC, 2,000,000 SHU, 1.33% major capsaicinoid product, and explicitly says that all Sabre Red product numbers end in “-OC”, the pocket unit tested above was labeled 2% OC and 0.67% major capsaicinoids. The pepper foam product was also labeled as weaker, with a 10% OC and 0.67% major capsaicinoid content. I called and left a message inquiring about this, and suggested they list the formulation used on each product's page, so that consumers don't have to guess about what formulation they're getting. Goodness knows whether I'll get a response.
The first was the basic black keychain product, HC-14-OC on Sabre’s web site, although to save money I got it as part of their product SRU-HAPK. It shoots a very narrow stream with a short (perhaps 6-8 feet) range. Spraying it on my forearm resulted in no noticeable burning sensation, and taking a deep breath near the site on my forearm resulted in no respiratory distress at all. I’m sure this product would still be most uncomfortable and perhaps quite painful if it gets directly into the eyes, but especially with a short range stream product like this one, relying on a direct hit to the eyes is not my cup of tea. Also, unlike Sabre’s other products, this one has no labeling indicating potency (it does indicate expiration). That’s a minor quibble, especially for a keychain product, but overall I am not thrilled by this product.
The next product was their Pepper Foam Home Self-Defense Spray, model # PFHM-80. It sprays in a very wide, shotgun type pattern that really couldn’t be that effective beyond 6 feet, in my estimation. It generated some burning on the forearm, but not much. When I took a deep breath above the spray on my forearm, it induced some coughing, but the effect seems to be limited to immediately after the spray is launched. I sprayed some into a bowl and inhaled a minute later and there were no effects at all. Altogether this seems to be a more effective product than the keychain version, with a wider spray pattern and slightly hotter formula, but it’s still not a product I’m particularly excited by.
The next was their pocket unit, P-22-OC. It sprayed a narrow stream, perhaps a little farther than the keychain product. It generated noticeable, long-lasting, but mild burning on my forearm, but I never experienced any effects from taking deep breaths near the spray site. If you can get it on the eyes, this would definitely work, but again, you’d have to get it on the eyes.
One last curious note about the above is in order. While Sabre markets their Sabre Red formulation as being a 10% OC, 2,000,000 SHU, 1.33% major capsaicinoid product, and explicitly says that all Sabre Red product numbers end in “-OC”, the pocket unit tested above was labeled 2% OC and 0.67% major capsaicinoids. The pepper foam product was also labeled as weaker, with a 10% OC and 0.67% major capsaicinoid content. I called and left a message inquiring about this, and suggested they list the formulation used on each product's page, so that consumers don't have to guess about what formulation they're getting. Goodness knows whether I'll get a response.
Pepper Spray Testing Methodology
Ok, that title makes this sound far more sophisticated than it actually is. Basically, I don't want to have to deal with the 45 minutes of hell that a decent pepper spray will put you through if sprayed to the face, but I still want to be able to compare sprays. So, with each spray I will be doing the following:
1) Spray into an open, outdoor area to gauge its effective range, its spread, resistance to wind, etc.
2) Spray briefly (1/4-1/2 second) onto my forearm with the palm up, to estimate raw heat.
3) Take a deep breath near the spray site on my forearm to judge its effects on breathing.
Obviously no spray's effects will be as impressive on my forearm as on my face, but so long as I test each spray the same way, I should get accurate relative rankings of the sprays.
That's it! Nothing fancy there at all.
P.S. It's far above my pay grade, but there's a company called Pepperball Technologies that manufactures what amount to paintballs filled with a powder mixture that contains a synthetic version of capsaicin (It goes by PAVA, Capsaicin II, and some other names). The chemical is just as hot as capsaicin, and their most intense mixture is 5% PAVA. Considering the hottest CLAIM (not substantiated) for a regular spray is 3.0% CRC, and probably only half of those, if that, are the hottest capsaicinoids, that powder mixture is over 2 times more powerful than the world's hottest pepper spray. Scary! And I want some :)
1) Spray into an open, outdoor area to gauge its effective range, its spread, resistance to wind, etc.
2) Spray briefly (1/4-1/2 second) onto my forearm with the palm up, to estimate raw heat.
3) Take a deep breath near the spray site on my forearm to judge its effects on breathing.
Obviously no spray's effects will be as impressive on my forearm as on my face, but so long as I test each spray the same way, I should get accurate relative rankings of the sprays.
That's it! Nothing fancy there at all.
P.S. It's far above my pay grade, but there's a company called Pepperball Technologies that manufactures what amount to paintballs filled with a powder mixture that contains a synthetic version of capsaicin (It goes by PAVA, Capsaicin II, and some other names). The chemical is just as hot as capsaicin, and their most intense mixture is 5% PAVA. Considering the hottest CLAIM (not substantiated) for a regular spray is 3.0% CRC, and probably only half of those, if that, are the hottest capsaicinoids, that powder mixture is over 2 times more powerful than the world's hottest pepper spray. Scary! And I want some :)
Pepper Spray Basics
Despite how confusing the marketing for pepper sprays can make it seem, the basic workings of pepper spray is fairly simple. Pepper spray contains some of a family of chemicals called capsaicinoids, and those chemicals are responsible for the burning, coughing, sneezing, etc. At the end of the day, it is the percentage of the spray that is each of the capsaicinoids that determines the heat of the spray itself.
Why do I say each of the capsaicinoids? It is because there are five primary capsaicinoids, and they fall into two basic levels of heat. Two of them, capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin, are basically the same strength, and are roughly 1.7-2.0 times as strong as the other three. So, if every spray told us what percentage of the spray's contents were each capsaicinoid, we'd have a perspicuous representation of the raw heat of the spray.
As life would have it, of course, no company indicates their spray's heat in this way. Instead, there are two primary ways companies indicate the strength of their product. The first, and far most common among self defense sprays, is to indicate the spray's OC% and the SHU, or Scoville Heat Units, of the OC. OC is short for oleoresin capsicum, and is the part of the spray that is actually derived from peppers; in other words, the OC is where the active ingredients are. The OC%, naturally, is the percentage of the spray that is OC. Scoville Heat Units are a subjective measure of spiciness attributed to, you guessed it, a chemist whose last name was Scoville. Basically, the SHU rating of an OC, or of a pepper, of a salsa is the degree to which it must be diluted before the spice can barely be tasted. Now, when pepper spray manufacturers refer to the SHU of their spray, they are actually referring to the SHU of the OC (unless otherwise indicated; some brands, like Heatwave, only test the heat after it has left the can).
Having said that, since OC% is the percentage of the spray that is OC, and since the reported SHU of a spray is the SHU of the OC, we can get a rough estimate of the raw heat of the spray by multiplying the OC% by the reported SHU of the OC. So, a 10% OC spray listed as 2,000,000 SHU can be (again, roughly) thought of as outputting a spray that is 200,000 SHU. This is important because some manufacturers emphasize the SHU of their spray, but don't point out that the OC comprises a tiny percentage of the spray, or do the opposite and point out that the spray has a large amount of OC in it, but ignore that the OC is quite weak.
As I have emphasized, though, this is only a rough estimate of raw heat. It is definitely not the alpha and omega of pepper spray effectiveness. For one thing, since pepper spray manufacturering is not regulated, there's no guarantee that the company's claims are even true. A company that claims a 10% OC, 2,000,000 SHU spray might actually turn out a product that is 7% OC, with an OC that is only 1,500,000 SHU. The difference in raw heat would be noticeable! (200,000 SHU spray out the nozzle in the first case versus 105,000 for the second). Second, pepper spray effectiveness is affected by other factors, like delivery method, a topic we will address soon.
I mentioned above that there are two main ways of marketing the strength of pepper sprays. The first, which we just examined, is most common for self-defense sprays. This second one is more common for bear sprays (pepper sprays designed to deter bears, reasonably enough). This second method is to list the percentage of the spray that is capsaicin and related capsaicinoids, or CRC%. For example, the EPA, which regulates bear sprays, requires that bear sprays have at least 1.0% CRC and no more than 2.0% CRC.
There is a problem with this, however. Remember what I said earlier about there being 5 capsaicinoids, with 2 of them being clustered near the theoretical maximum? Capsaicin is 16,000,000 SHU, and dihydrocapsaicin is usually put around 15,000,00; remember, those figures are subjective and not etched in stone. The other three, though, range from 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 SHU. So, a spray containing only 2.0% CRC, but with all of it coming from capsaicin, would be expected to have roughly 320,000 SHU coming out of the nozzle, while another with 3.0% CRC, but with all of it coming from the weakest capsaicinoid, would be expected to have roughly 240,000 SHU coming out of the nozzle.
The result of all this is that since none of the pepper spray manufacturers are required to indicate the strength of their sprays by listing the percentage of the spray that is each of the capsaicinoids, and are not regulated, the manufacturer's claims can only be taken to be a (very) rough indicator of the spray's hotness. This is what necessitates subjective testing of the spray's effects. Objective testing of the spray's contents would be very nice, but I haven't the money or equipment to engage in testing that extensive.
The final piece of this puzzle is the delivery system. OC is almost always used in a spray, and then there are three basic spray patterns used. The first is a narrow stream, which is easier to use when there's a stiff breeze blowing about, but requires more precision in aiming. The second is a fog pattern, which generally has a shorter range, is more affected by wind, but requires less aiming. It also affects the respiratory system more easily, since it can be breathed in more readily. That last factor is the reason I tend to prefer fogs or cones (cones are basically a more narrow fog, so you get the best of the stream and fog worlds). The final distinct patter is foam/gel. These are also easier to use in wind, but they are also easier to clean off, which is excellent for a controlled situation like a prison (where they are most common), but not so great in a self defense situation. As a side note, one of the reasons the OC% * SHU formula can't be the final word on pepper spray effectiveness relies on the behavior of the fog patterns. For a fog to work well, it has to be turned into very fine particles; however, OC is an oil, and oils don't very much like to be turned into fine particles. So, even though a 2% OC at 5,000,000 SHU would be expected to output 100,000 SHU, and 20% OC at 500,000 SHU would be expected to do the same, the former would likely be more effective as a fog, since the latter would be quite oily.
Well, that rounds up the pepper spray basics. In the next post I'll briefly outline the methodology of the tests I will be doing with pepper sprays, and then it'll be off to the races with testing!
Why do I say each of the capsaicinoids? It is because there are five primary capsaicinoids, and they fall into two basic levels of heat. Two of them, capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin, are basically the same strength, and are roughly 1.7-2.0 times as strong as the other three. So, if every spray told us what percentage of the spray's contents were each capsaicinoid, we'd have a perspicuous representation of the raw heat of the spray.
As life would have it, of course, no company indicates their spray's heat in this way. Instead, there are two primary ways companies indicate the strength of their product. The first, and far most common among self defense sprays, is to indicate the spray's OC% and the SHU, or Scoville Heat Units, of the OC. OC is short for oleoresin capsicum, and is the part of the spray that is actually derived from peppers; in other words, the OC is where the active ingredients are. The OC%, naturally, is the percentage of the spray that is OC. Scoville Heat Units are a subjective measure of spiciness attributed to, you guessed it, a chemist whose last name was Scoville. Basically, the SHU rating of an OC, or of a pepper, of a salsa is the degree to which it must be diluted before the spice can barely be tasted. Now, when pepper spray manufacturers refer to the SHU of their spray, they are actually referring to the SHU of the OC (unless otherwise indicated; some brands, like Heatwave, only test the heat after it has left the can).
Having said that, since OC% is the percentage of the spray that is OC, and since the reported SHU of a spray is the SHU of the OC, we can get a rough estimate of the raw heat of the spray by multiplying the OC% by the reported SHU of the OC. So, a 10% OC spray listed as 2,000,000 SHU can be (again, roughly) thought of as outputting a spray that is 200,000 SHU. This is important because some manufacturers emphasize the SHU of their spray, but don't point out that the OC comprises a tiny percentage of the spray, or do the opposite and point out that the spray has a large amount of OC in it, but ignore that the OC is quite weak.
As I have emphasized, though, this is only a rough estimate of raw heat. It is definitely not the alpha and omega of pepper spray effectiveness. For one thing, since pepper spray manufacturering is not regulated, there's no guarantee that the company's claims are even true. A company that claims a 10% OC, 2,000,000 SHU spray might actually turn out a product that is 7% OC, with an OC that is only 1,500,000 SHU. The difference in raw heat would be noticeable! (200,000 SHU spray out the nozzle in the first case versus 105,000 for the second). Second, pepper spray effectiveness is affected by other factors, like delivery method, a topic we will address soon.
I mentioned above that there are two main ways of marketing the strength of pepper sprays. The first, which we just examined, is most common for self-defense sprays. This second one is more common for bear sprays (pepper sprays designed to deter bears, reasonably enough). This second method is to list the percentage of the spray that is capsaicin and related capsaicinoids, or CRC%. For example, the EPA, which regulates bear sprays, requires that bear sprays have at least 1.0% CRC and no more than 2.0% CRC.
There is a problem with this, however. Remember what I said earlier about there being 5 capsaicinoids, with 2 of them being clustered near the theoretical maximum? Capsaicin is 16,000,000 SHU, and dihydrocapsaicin is usually put around 15,000,00; remember, those figures are subjective and not etched in stone. The other three, though, range from 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 SHU. So, a spray containing only 2.0% CRC, but with all of it coming from capsaicin, would be expected to have roughly 320,000 SHU coming out of the nozzle, while another with 3.0% CRC, but with all of it coming from the weakest capsaicinoid, would be expected to have roughly 240,000 SHU coming out of the nozzle.
The result of all this is that since none of the pepper spray manufacturers are required to indicate the strength of their sprays by listing the percentage of the spray that is each of the capsaicinoids, and are not regulated, the manufacturer's claims can only be taken to be a (very) rough indicator of the spray's hotness. This is what necessitates subjective testing of the spray's effects. Objective testing of the spray's contents would be very nice, but I haven't the money or equipment to engage in testing that extensive.
The final piece of this puzzle is the delivery system. OC is almost always used in a spray, and then there are three basic spray patterns used. The first is a narrow stream, which is easier to use when there's a stiff breeze blowing about, but requires more precision in aiming. The second is a fog pattern, which generally has a shorter range, is more affected by wind, but requires less aiming. It also affects the respiratory system more easily, since it can be breathed in more readily. That last factor is the reason I tend to prefer fogs or cones (cones are basically a more narrow fog, so you get the best of the stream and fog worlds). The final distinct patter is foam/gel. These are also easier to use in wind, but they are also easier to clean off, which is excellent for a controlled situation like a prison (where they are most common), but not so great in a self defense situation. As a side note, one of the reasons the OC% * SHU formula can't be the final word on pepper spray effectiveness relies on the behavior of the fog patterns. For a fog to work well, it has to be turned into very fine particles; however, OC is an oil, and oils don't very much like to be turned into fine particles. So, even though a 2% OC at 5,000,000 SHU would be expected to output 100,000 SHU, and 20% OC at 500,000 SHU would be expected to do the same, the former would likely be more effective as a fog, since the latter would be quite oily.
Well, that rounds up the pepper spray basics. In the next post I'll briefly outline the methodology of the tests I will be doing with pepper sprays, and then it'll be off to the races with testing!
Introduction to Pepper Spray Reviews
Pepper spray is a very popular tool for self defense, riot control, and other situations in which effective non-lethal deterrents are needed. However, this popularity has not been accompanied by an increase in accurate common knowledge about how to choose among the numerous alternatives.
You see, I became interested in carrying some sort of self defense weapon just in case good sense wasn't enough to steer clear of trouble. The obvious choice (for many people, at least) is to carry some sort of handgun. The trick with handguns, though, is that quality guns are expensive, require quite a bit of practice to reach a skill level useful in an adrenaline-filled real life crisis, are illegal to concealed carry without a license (in some states/districts it is illegal, period), and are highly subject to legal repercussions even if used properly (that is, are you sure that guy with the knife was trying to kill you? If a jury can be convinced shooting him was excessive, you and the bad guy both go down).
Knives, batons, and stun guns all suffered from a similar flaw I really didn't like: you have to be quite close to your assailant to use them. I would like to have the ability to hit from a bit of a distance; it's just safer that way.
So, I decided that I would just get the best pepper spray product I could justify purchasing, and voila!, my problems would be solved. Right? Well, as it turned out, not so much. Pepper sprays are marketed in all sorts of bizarre ways, and many of the objective features pointed to by the marketing are only one piece of the pepper spray effectiveness puzzle.
What makes the situation worse is that when it comes to subjective reviews of pepper spray effectiveness, it is difficult (as near as I can tell it is impossible) to find a site where many different sprays have been tested by the same person. There are plenty of subjective reviews, of course, but to compare apples to apples we need a wide variety of sprays tested by the same people.
This blog is my humble attempt to clear some of the confusion about the basic workings of pepper spray, and to review several of the popular varieties by testing them on yours truly. I hope this helps some of you out there who are just confused about all of this as I was!
You see, I became interested in carrying some sort of self defense weapon just in case good sense wasn't enough to steer clear of trouble. The obvious choice (for many people, at least) is to carry some sort of handgun. The trick with handguns, though, is that quality guns are expensive, require quite a bit of practice to reach a skill level useful in an adrenaline-filled real life crisis, are illegal to concealed carry without a license (in some states/districts it is illegal, period), and are highly subject to legal repercussions even if used properly (that is, are you sure that guy with the knife was trying to kill you? If a jury can be convinced shooting him was excessive, you and the bad guy both go down).
Knives, batons, and stun guns all suffered from a similar flaw I really didn't like: you have to be quite close to your assailant to use them. I would like to have the ability to hit from a bit of a distance; it's just safer that way.
So, I decided that I would just get the best pepper spray product I could justify purchasing, and voila!, my problems would be solved. Right? Well, as it turned out, not so much. Pepper sprays are marketed in all sorts of bizarre ways, and many of the objective features pointed to by the marketing are only one piece of the pepper spray effectiveness puzzle.
What makes the situation worse is that when it comes to subjective reviews of pepper spray effectiveness, it is difficult (as near as I can tell it is impossible) to find a site where many different sprays have been tested by the same person. There are plenty of subjective reviews, of course, but to compare apples to apples we need a wide variety of sprays tested by the same people.
This blog is my humble attempt to clear some of the confusion about the basic workings of pepper spray, and to review several of the popular varieties by testing them on yours truly. I hope this helps some of you out there who are just confused about all of this as I was!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)