Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns The prodigal returns home

I lifted this from Texas CHL forum, I thought it might be interesting for a few of you to read. Charles L. Cotton is on the NRA board of directors, competitive shooter, hunter, collector and NRA Certified Instructor. Member TSRA, IDPA, IPSC, NSSR, LEAA, co-founder and Match Director of PSC-IDPA Match.....

Thu Dec 28, 2017

I have come full circle. I've have returned to my roots. There's no place like home. Okay, enough with the clichés.

I'm returning to a 1911 in 45ACP as my EDC. I've been carrying a CZ Compact PCR for over a year now and I love the gun. It has never malfunctioned and that's quite a statement. With a 14 rd mag., one in the chamber and an extra mag on my belt, I'm carrying a very respectable 29 rds of 9mm JHP. If I still had young eyes, I'd stick with it or perhaps a CZ 75 Phanton. Alas, my eyes are as old as the rest of me and I simply cannot see the front sight as well as I want. On the range, I wear special glasses for shooting, but I don't wear them away from the range. Using a fiber optic front sight I can still shoot with reasonable combat accuracy even at some distance. I guess I'm fighting the aging process, but I want to be able to shoot like I did 20 or 30 years ago. A Deltapoint Pro allows me to do that, but that's not a good option for my CZ Compact.

I just bought a Springfield Champion Operator lightweight and should take delivery tomorrow. I'll shoot it to see if it needs any trigger work and to rule out any problems. Then it will to go Ed Vanden Berg (Vanden Berg Custom) to have a Deltapoint Pro milled into the slide. I chose to buy a Champion because it does not have a firing pin block as do my Colt Commanders and Kimber Pro Carry. That allows Ed to mill the slide deeper resulting in a lower installation of the Deltapoint Pro.

A good friend asked why I didn’t buy a Champion Range Officer in 9mm and have a 38 Super barrel fitted. He asked because I told him how much I like my Government Model 9/38Super that I’ve been shooting. If I want to carry a 38Super with a Deltapoint Pro, I’ll carry my Government Model (Springfield). I want 1) a 45ACP with a Deltapoint Pro; 2) in a Commander length gun; and 3) with an aluminum frame for EDC.

I originally left the 1911 45ACP because events over the last few years caused me to be concerned about capacity. I won’t go into a lengthy explanation why, but I no longer have that concern. With 9 rds. in the gun and two 10-rd mags on my belt (yes, 10-rounders), I’ll be carrying the same “combat load” I currently carry with my CZ.

Some will point out the FBI study (aka excuse) for abandoning the .40 S&W and returning to the 9mm. The FBI focused on follow-up shots which, to me, simply promotes “spray and pray” over accuracy.

As with everything gun related, it’s all a mater of choice. I choose a big bore lightweight gun with a RDS.

Ah, it’s good to be home!
Chas.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=91071&sid=675b394fa8875c1bbe7ddca49b7c95b7

In looking at his credentials I know exactly where he is coming from and why he chose the sighting system he did...

It would not be my choice for an EDC handgun sighting system, but to each his own...

Bob

Any time I see the phrase "spray and pray" used, I immediately discount the validity of the entire article.

Why?

Because its a term largely used by dolts as a justification to carry a reduced capacity gun, and to vilify those who choose another path. Had the goober simply said 'I am back to carrying this antiquated turd because I want to," the article would have yielded the same outcome, without sounding like a doddering old fool. He makes himself sound even more ignorant by dismissing follow up shots as all but silliness, and that one shot from the almighty .45 is all it takes.

I carry a 1911 because it sits flatter against my side than a double stack Glock 20 does. I will carry a the 1911 for two reasons; it's a full size auto, and it IS thinner than the double stack pistols, which I won't carry.

The term pray and spray is a legitimate description of what a whole lotta cops did when the "wonder 9's" became so prevalent in the US. Cops shot more, a LOT more, and hit LESS. The hit to shots fired % was something like a dismal 17% after many departments were issued high capacity 9mm semi auto pistols. Many admitted that they didn't try to acquire a sight picture as they reasoned they had enough bullets that staying behind cover and exposing only their gun and hand was a legitimate tactic. A tactic that was NEVER taught.

When I was on duty, I carried a 1911, then went to a Glock 20 for the increased capacity. But, as a uniformed Deputy Sheriff I, of course, carried the Glock in a duty holster that hung off of my duty belt right at my hand's level when just casually walking around or standing. And, as a plug for the 1911, there is no semi-auto striker fired pistol that can even come close to a tuned 3 lb trigger in a 1911 platform. The guy that gets the first hit usually wins the gun fight...not always, but more often than not. That's another plug for a 1911 and their triggers.

Full circle ..will be when they start carrying revolvers again

I love Glocks and I love 1911's, hell I love revolvers too, I must be bi-polar.

Urban legends such as this, even if true, are a direct result of training, not of the gun. Having more bullets is NEVER a bad idea. To insinuate that fewer rounds makes one a better shot is silly, and indicative of old hat Fudd training that persists in LE.

If someone wants to carry a single stack .45 that carries less than half the rounds a 9mm of similar weight and size, I could not care less. When that person tries to validate their decision by insinuating those who choose not to are somehow destined to "spray and pray,' the idiocy is simply too thick to tolerate.

That would be tri-polar😀

Tri-polar.

“The stupid FBI is too worried about those silly follow up shots...... Now excuse me while I strap on my two extra, extra capacity, magazines.”

The lengths folks will go to to justify their silly affectations. How hard is it to say "I am gonna carry this turd 'cause I want to..."?

What do you mean "again"? I never stopped. I haven't owned a centerfire semi-auto handgun since about 1986 or 1987. Revolvers, preferably single action, do it best for me in my current setting. It's not merely "want to", but there's a component of that, too.

Tom

This, plus he used the term "combat accuracy" and he's expecting a Commander-length gun with a lightweight frame to be as reliable as a full-sized steel-framed 1911.


The FBI may have its issues, but they're squared away when it comes to identifying the right gear for shooting people. The problem with mentioning the FBI study is that you have to read and ponder the whole thing and not just focus on one aspect of it. But if you want to carry a 1911 when every major law-enforcement organization and every Tier I special operations unit in the world is a carrying double-column polymer handgun, then go for it. Just don't hide behind this kind of logic. It's embarrassing.


Okie John

Urban legend my azz.

If you train well enough to be competent w/ a handgun why wouldn't higher capacity, greater reliability and less recoil be advantageous? If you don't train well you can seek out mechanical advantages w/out solving the problem.


mike r

Uh huh....

Interesting that's the only point you attack....

This just keeps on killing me.....

What point? That it's an "urban legend" or a myth in your words? We used training films showing officers doing just as I described. Cameras weren't near as prevalent then (early to mid 1980s) as they are now. But we viewed a steady stream of officers blowing through an entire mag without once checking to see if the bad guy was still there or what they were hitting. Often they reloaded and shot a few more rounds just for fun I guess. Who knows? Until you've been shot at or shot someone you can't label either event. Yeah, it was and is a training problem, but it damn sure wasn't an urban legend. As far as the rest of your post goes, so what? You can call my 1911 an "old turd", but I shoot more accurately and faster with that old turd (in 45 ACP yet) than I do any polymer frame, striker fired, high capacity pistol. I've shot a lot more than most cops from when I was working and even the youngsters currently policing America, and I've also shot a lot less than people like Blue. I've put 30,000+ rounds through my Glock 20. I'm just guessing, but I imagine Blue puts a 6 figure amount of ammo through his pistols. Compare me to the average LEO who shoots only when they are forced to qualify each year, and it looks like I shoot a lot. I've probably shot more than my G20 round count through several 1911 platforms. I also carried, briefly, a Para Ordnance P-14 (45 ACP) that carried 15 rounds of 45 ACP. The reason that was the only point I disagree with you on is you are mischaracterizing a real phenomenon that occurred when 9mm high capacity pistols offered a alternative choice to officers who didn't like shooting a 45 (I still don't see why anyone can't shoot a 45 ACP) and wanted to get as much ammo in the gun that a revolver and two speed loaders carried. And the 9mm is easier to shoot well due to less recoil. The officers that pray and spray tend to be the ones that shoot only when they have to. I happen to agree with you that extra ammo is always a good thing to have immediate access to. In my case, carrying my old turd means I will actually carry every day. Carrying a fat double stack mag, high capacity pistol is simply something I won't do on a daily basis. So my dilemma is not extra ammo, it's ammo or harsh language. As far as I can tell, the only gripe you could possibly have with me is if we both end up back to back in a helluva gun fight and I run dry and the bad guys rush us. If we live, I'll gladly take all the criticism you want to dish out.