A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Mr. Wilson forgets that concealed carriers are not in the cop business. And Mr. Wilson is confused about the meaning of "average".
While the police are definitely more likely than the average joe to be in a shooting situation, the thought/preparedness process still applies. To think that it wouldn't or couldn't is short-sighted.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Mr. Wilson forgets that concealed carriers are not in the cop business. And Mr. Wilson is confused about the meaning of "average".
While the police are definitely more likely than the average joe to be in a shooting situation, the thought/preparedness process still applies. To think that it wouldn't or couldn't is short-sighted.
Toche'
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I read somewhere we the "average" civilian engagement is two-four rounds. I normally carry a 1911 (8+1) 45 or a G=48 (10+1)....plus one spare, but those who choose wheelguns are ok as well.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I hope to go to my grave a happy fat old man without ever having to use my gun in self defense. That said, I am happy and fat and working hard on the old part. Anyway, the thinking in TN (where I got my concealed carry permit) was to make you shoot to 21 yards. Now they have changed the process and the longest yardage is 11 yards. The change was due to the thinking "if you are 21 yards away, you have options other than shooting". If you agree or disagree with that, with that kind of thinking by law makers, the longer the distance, the harder it might be to get a jury to buy the "I was in fear for my life".
I figure that if I was ever in the position of having to shoot at somebody, between nerves and adrenalin, I want all the ammo I can have. Shooting at a target is one thing but the target shooting back is another. YMMV
I may not be smart but I can lift heavy objects
I have a shotgun so I have no need for a 30-06.....
If anything, another argument in favor of the 9mm. Assuming a moderately sized pistol, like the Glock 19, you've got double the number of rounds in a 1911 without carrying ANY reload and only one reload allows you to fight a small war.
I'm an expert on "Average" see my name. I tote a Mossberg mc1sc with 7+1 and a 6 round spare mag and I'm comfy. Ive learned that folks tend to unass areas because incoming has the right of way. Perhaps I should carry a 3rd magazine or get a pistol caliber carbine oops folks would notice though.
Bangflop! another skinning job due to .260 and proper shot placement.
After watching many ASP videos of real world videos, I tend to carry a bigger caliber with a reload available. Rarely does it seem a one on one fight...it's usually a planned 2 or 3 on one unsuspecting victim...it seems numbers embolden the criminals and multiple shots scatter them.
I wonder if these stats are a chicken-egg situation.
If most concealed carriers carry small round count pistols and primarily practice at close range, should we be surprised that most civilian shootings involve low round counts at close range?......Which convince more folks to carry small round count pistols and practice at close range.
Since 9/11 real gunfighters have proven what works and made that knowledge available to all.
The old boys still try to sound valid but are flailing. the sheriff, ayoob et al were theorists whose time is long past
mike r
Really? Please, go on and enlighten us...
I don't practice enlightenment but, the firearms instruction community is now dominated by guys that have made hundreds of hits on very dangerous bad guys and have led a continuing evolution in tactics and practices.
If I wish to improve my survivability I prefer to learn from folks that earned their credentials in the worlds toughest arenas in the current century.
YMMV
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Gentlemen I think we're offtrack. Streetthugs normally don't carry AK's and speak Arabic or Farsi.Terrorists don't normally smoke crack or steal for meth. Congrats to the Mil folks but I don't think the Seals are swapping to Shield+ or J frames.
Bangflop! another skinning job due to .260 and proper shot placement.
Nor are informed civilians using J frames anymore. The enemy you describe deserves and may require your best. You can decide what that is for yourself. If you think you are good enough you are probably wrong.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
Getting caught in a random shooting from an adversary with an AK or AR would be one worst case type scenario. For an average person to be prepared as best a normal person could, would be to have to a semi auto with a good magazine capacity and a reload. Also to be aware of your surroundings. To be a practiced shooter as well and hope for the best outcome
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Mr. Wilson forgets that concealed carriers are not in the cop business. And Mr. Wilson is confused about the meaning of "average".
While the police are definitely more likely than the average joe to be in a shooting situation, the thought/preparedness process still applies. To think that it wouldn't or couldn't is short-sighted.
About 100 million times more likely.
Police are paid to be the aggressor, escalate the situation and make an arrest. To that end, they need different tactics, equipment, etc. than a concealed carrying citizen. That is why I talk about CC'ers NOT being in the cop business. Far too many guys engage in this mental masturbation dreaming of being the hero who saves the hostage or stops a platoon of ninja jihadists.
The thought process for getting yourself out of a lethal situation is far different for an armed citizen.
Go ahead and play with yourselves whilst entertaining your hero fantasies.
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
Getting caught in a random shooting from an adversary with an AK or AR would be one worst case type scenario. For an average person to be prepared as best a normal person could, would be to have to a semi auto with a good magazine capacity and a reload. Also to be aware of your surroundings. To be a practiced shooter as well and hope for the best outcome
There are worse worse case scenarios than that; for instance, 2 adversaries with AK or AR's. Is anyone prepared for that? My point is that there is always a worse worse case scenario, so it's impossible to be prepared for everything. How to decide how prepared to be is the question, The gunfight stats are a way of assessing that, imperfect thought they may be. You have decided that a pistol + a reload is sufficient, but aren't other options on either side of that level of preparedness perfectly reasonable as well? (Including a snub nose?) Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm not a LEO or ex-military so I have no basis for arguing. Just trying to apply reason to the question of what/how much to carry.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
Getting caught in a random shooting from an adversary with an AK or AR would be one worst case type scenario. For an average person to be prepared as best a normal person could, would be to have to a semi auto with a good magazine capacity and a reload. Also to be aware of your surroundings. To be a practiced shooter as well and hope for the best outcome
There are worse worse case scenarios than that; for instance, 2 adversaries with AK or AR's. Is anyone prepared for that? My point is that there is always a worse worse case scenario, so it's impossible to be prepared for everything. How to decide how prepared to be is the question, The gunfight stats are a way of assessing that, imperfect thought they may be. You have decided that a pistol + a reload is sufficient, but aren't other options on either side of that level of preparedness perfectly reasonable as well? (Including a snub nose?) Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm not a LEO or ex-military so I have no basis for arguing. Just trying to apply reason to the question of what/how much to carry.
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Thanks, Jorge. I'm in the camp that feels if one needs a gun, he is going to need it very badly. What's more, he will do best if he is using what he shoots best under stress. The other thing I've learned is to slow down and make sure you hit what you need to. Use the sights, or the front sight at least. When your life is on the line, focusing on that front sight is the toughest thing you will ever do. I understand that LAPD has the highest survival rate of any large city PD. They are required to shoot a lot and use that method. E
personally I dont think it's a this or that decision and my choices and preperation needs varies. i ive in a very rural area. with a relatively low crime index. however 30 moniutes away is a shidt hole fo a city with shootings becoming pretty common. that is relavent to me because thos same schidtheads are travelling to my area more and more for "bGusiness" mos often I feel pretty comfortable with Sig 226 in 357 and a spare 15 round mec gar. contrast to this week I spent 9 days in Philthadelphia while my daugher was in the hospital. I opted for an xds 45 and 3 spare six round magazines, as it was easier to conceal in the Hospital. this trip involved walkin several blocks through "the hood" to wthe motel I was staying at. an AR SBR in a mystery ranch Pintler walking back and forth was quite comforting
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
personally I dont think it's a this or that decision and my choices and preperation needs varies. i ive in a very rural area. with a relatively low crime index. however 30 moniutes away is a shidt hole fo a city with shootings becoming pretty common. that is relavent to me because thos same schidtheads are travelling to my area more and more for "bGusiness" mos often I feel pretty comfortable with Sig 226 in 357 and a spare 15 round mec gar. contrast to this week I spent 9 days in Philthadelphia while my daugher was in the hospital. I opted for an xds 45 and 3 spare six round magazines, as it was easier to conceal in the Hospital. this trip involved walkin several blocks through "the hood" to wthe motel I was staying at. an AR SBR in a mystery ranch Pintler walking back and forth was quite comforting
Sounds good to me
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. So you have been in situations where a snub nose wasn't adequate? It seems you have recovered nicely. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo I like the 365 too, but it is easy to come up with scenarios where it would not be adequate.
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario In other words, a worst case scenario is what you say it is.
Okay, now I'm getting a little argumentative, but words have meanings. Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. So you have been in situations where a snub nose wasn't adequate? It seems you have recovered nicely. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo I like the 365 too, but it is easy to come up with scenarios where it would not be adequate.
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario In other words, a worst case scenario is what you say it is.
Okay, now I'm getting a little argumentative, but words have meanings. Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
Just as I thought trolling BS I don't need to be in a gun fight with a jframe to find it inadequate my certain situations in my opinion you pompous azz
I've shot a jframes enough to know their capabilities
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. So you have been in situations where a snub nose wasn't adequate? It seems you have recovered nicely. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo I like the 365 too, but it is easy to come up with scenarios where it would not be adequate.
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario In other words, a worst case scenario is what you say it is.
Okay, now I'm getting a little argumentative, but words have meanings. Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
Just as I thought trolling BS I don't need to be in a gun fight with a jframe to find it inadequate my certain situations in my opinion you pompous azz
I've shot a jframes enough to know their capabilities
So it's your way or the highway, right? Got it.
Yes, I'm trolling...trolling for information and questioning certain things that I see as unclear or presumptuous. If that makes me a pompous azz, then so be it. Pretty clear who the thin-skinned one here is.
I hope your command of your weapon is better than your command of the language.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. So you have been in situations where a snub nose wasn't adequate? It seems you have recovered nicely. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo I like the 365 too, but it is easy to come up with scenarios where it would not be adequate.
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario In other words, a worst case scenario is what you say it is.
Okay, now I'm getting a little argumentative, but words have meanings. Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
Just as I thought trolling BS I don't need to be in a gun fight with a jframe to find it inadequate my certain situations in my opinion you pompous azz
I've shot a jframes enough to know their capabilities
So it's your way or the highway, right? Got it.
Yes, I'm trolling...trolling for information and questioning certain things that I see as unclear or presumptuous. If that makes me a pompous azz, then so be it. Pretty clear who the thin-skinned one here is.
I hope your command of your weapon is better than your command of the language.
No you are being an azx pure and simple. That stupid statement of have "I been in a gun fight with a jframe" proved your BS. Why would I need to be in a gunfight to realize the limitations of a jframe compared to a better weapon for concealed carry
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
These threads make it apparent who has or has not taken high level training and who does the work to achieve and maintain competency. I have been schooled regularly since 1980 on my own dime and while getting paid. I learned a lot and progressed to a certain level of competence. I tested myself for years by competing regularly in USPSA, IDPA and Inter agency matches.
Learning is a process of evolution and everything that I think and do has changed over time.
Since 9/11 guys like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, John McPhee, Kyle DeFoor, Travis Haley and others have made training based on real life experience and a dedication to excellence available to us normal folks. Simply stated modern weapons, tactics and procedures are vastly different and far superior from those of "the good old days"
Those that fail to recognize that fact cling to the old ways and sound foolish when trying to defend their lack of self improvement.
as always,YMMV
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. So you have been in situations where a snub nose wasn't adequate? It seems you have recovered nicely. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo I like the 365 too, but it is easy to come up with scenarios where it would not be adequate.
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario In other words, a worst case scenario is what you say it is.
Okay, now I'm getting a little argumentative, but words have meanings. Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
Just as I thought trolling BS I don't need to be in a gun fight with a jframe to find it inadequate my certain situations in my opinion you pompous azz
I've shot a jframes enough to know their capabilities
So it's your way or the highway, right? Got it.
Yes, I'm trolling...trolling for information and questioning certain things that I see as unclear or presumptuous. If that makes me a pompous azz, then so be it. Pretty clear who the thin-skinned one here is.
I hope your command of your weapon is better than your command of the language.
No you are being an azx pure and simple. That stupid statement of have "I been in a gun fight with a jframe" proved your BS. Why would I need to be in a gunfight to realize the limitations of a jframe compared to a better weapon for concealed carry
Geez, man, get a grip. When you said "A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations" it sounded like you were saying that you had been in situations where it wasn't up to the job. And I never questioned the limitations of a Jframe. They are what they are and they have their place. My point has only been that there is always a worse worse case scenario and that we are fooling ourselves if we think we have every situation covered. How one decides how much is enough is for each to decide and I'm only trying to figure out how folks approach making that decision. It seems to me that "Worst case scenario" is not a good framework for making that decision.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
How about an ambush so you never have a chance? You fid as I figured trolled. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations. So you have been in situations where a snub nose wasn't adequate? It seems you have recovered nicely. I carry a P365 load re d with a 15 rd mag and a spare 16 rd mag. The P365 is easier to make accurate shots than a jframe by for and holds a lot more ammo I like the 365 too, but it is easy to come up with scenarios where it would not be adequate.
I doubt that I'd ever need that much ammo thus prepared for a worst case scenario In other words, a worst case scenario is what you say it is.
Okay, now I'm getting a little argumentative, but words have meanings. Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
Just as I thought trolling BS I don't need to be in a gun fight with a jframe to find it inadequate my certain situations in my opinion you pompous azz
I've shot a jframes enough to know their capabilities
So it's your way or the highway, right? Got it.
Yes, I'm trolling...trolling for information and questioning certain things that I see as unclear or presumptuous. If that makes me a pompous azz, then so be it. Pretty clear who the thin-skinned one here is.
I hope your command of your weapon is better than your command of the language.
No you are being an azx pure and simple. That stupid statement of have "I been in a gun fight with a jframe" proved your BS. Why would I need to be in a gunfight to realize the limitations of a jframe compared to a better weapon for concealed carry
Geez, man, get a grip. When you said "A Jframe I don't find adequate fir a lot of situations" it sounded like you were saying that you had been in situations where it wasn't up to the job. And I never questioned the limitations of a Jframe. They are what they are and they have their place. My point has only been that there is always a worse worse case scenario and that we are fooling ourselves if we think we have every situation covered. How one decides how much is enough is for each to decide and I'm only trying to figure out how folks approach making that decision. It seems to me that "Worst case scenario" is not a good framework for making that decision.
Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that it is impossible to be prepared 100% for every conceivable situation. One can't walk around with 500 rds for their AR along with a few grenades.
I'd rather have an accurate semi auto pistol with a double stack mag, giving me a better weapon than any jframe, by its increased capacity and easier to hit with
I'm sure that YOU could come up with scenarios that a platoon would be needed to deal with
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
These threads make it apparent who has or has not taken high level training and who does the work to achieve and maintain competency. I have been schooled regularly since 1980 on my own dime and while getting paid. I learned a lot and progressed to a certain level of competence. I tested myself for years by competing regularly in USPSA, IDPA and Inter agency matches.
Learning is a process of evolution and everything that I think and do has changed over time.
Since 9/11 guys like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, John McPhee, Kyle DeFoor, Travis Haley and others have made training based on real life experience and a dedication to excellence available to us normal folks. Simply stated modern weapons, tactics and procedures are vastly different and far superior from those of "the good old days"
Those that fail to recognize that fact cling to the old ways and sound foolish when trying to defend their lack of self improvement.
as always,YMMV
mike r
Practical approach IMHO
Last edited by jwp475; 05/16/21.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I've been shooting 1911s my whole life, including competitively for a bit whilst in the Navy. That is what I'm comfortable with. I also have my share (3) of stoker fired pistols (Glocks) which I like, but at this stage in my life I'm not willing to invest in retraining myself to shoot them as well and accurately as a 1911. Am I giving up an advantage due to the decreased capacity (9 v 15 plus)? you bet, but I'm convinced that in the kind of scenario I might find myself in where I have to skin leather, I can do it better than 90 plus per cent of the criminals out there. Lastly, even if these "studies" including the FBI one more or less say most "civilian encounters" are resolved with three shots or less, I'm good with my nine rounds plus a reload.
And as far as police are concerned, those stats are accurate and proof positive I can outshoot most of them and as to dealing with stress, I think I can do that better than most.. So yeah, it was an interesting study.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Gentlemen I think we're offtrack. Streetthugs normally don't carry AK's and speak Arabic or Farsi.Terrorists don't normally smoke crack or steal for meth. Congrats to the Mil folks but I don't think the Seals are swapping to Shield+ or J frames.
Quite a few of the more recent mass casualty events in everyday American venues have involved long guns, and street criminals with long guns are not that unusual. But, even a couple of bad guys with Glock 17s are nothing to sneeze at. Add some drugs or mental conditions that impact reactions to pain and you are looking at a pretty serious situation. We are fortunate these days because, for the approximate size of a J frame, one can get a much better platform with higher capacity, higher rate of fire, greater accuracy and easier reloading. Go in peace.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that it is impossible to be prepared 100% for every conceivable situation. One can't walk around with 500 rds for their AR along with a few grenades.
I'd rather have an accurate semi auto pistol with a double stack mag, giving me a better weapon than any jframe, by its increased capacity and easier to hit with
I'm sure that YOU could come up with scenarios that a platoon would be needed to deal with
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be provocative here. When someone says worst case scenario, what does that mean? And how did they arrive at their definition? As you say, common sense tells us that we can't be prepared for everything, so how does one decide what to prepare for?
I agree with you, I'd rather have the pistol as well. You said you carried a reload as well. How did you decide on one, none, or two extra magazines? I'm interested in how people decide, not so much what they decide on.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that it is impossible to be prepared 100% for every conceivable situation. One can't walk around with 500 rds for their AR along with a few grenades.
I'd rather have an accurate semi auto pistol with a double stack mag, giving me a better weapon than any jframe, by its increased capacity and easier to hit with
I'm sure that YOU could come up with scenarios that a platoon would be needed to deal with
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be provocative here. When someone says worst case scenario, what does that mean? And how did they arrive at their definition? As you say, common sense tells us that we can't be prepared for everything, so how does one decide what to prepare for?
I agree with you, I'd rather have the pistol as well. You said you carried a reload as well. How did you decide on one, none, or two extra magazines? I'm interested in how people decide, not so much what they decide on.
I decided that with one reload I have 31 rds and I decided that should be more than enough.
I live in a rural area and I never thought that we would have a random shooter but we did. If I am in my vehicle and get shot the way this guy did 4 people and I have the ability to return fire. I did not want to run out of ammo in my CCW
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
... And as far as police are concerned, those stats are accurate and proof positive I can outshoot most of them and as to dealing with stress, I think I can do that better than most.. So yeah, it was an interesting study.
What police statistics are you referring to?
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that it is impossible to be prepared 100% for every conceivable situation. One can't walk around with 500 rds for their AR along with a few grenades.
I'd rather have an accurate semi auto pistol with a double stack mag, giving me a better weapon than any jframe, by its increased capacity and easier to hit with
I'm sure that YOU could come up with scenarios that a platoon would be needed to deal with
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be provocative here. When someone says worst case scenario, what does that mean? And how did they arrive at their definition? As you say, common sense tells us that we can't be prepared for everything, so how does one decide what to prepare for?
I agree with you, I'd rather have the pistol as well. You said you carried a reload as well. How did you decide on one, none, or two extra magazines? I'm interested in how people decide, not so much what they decide on.
It's very simple. What can you reasonably carry that will give you the greatest capabilities in the widest variety of situations.
You are not preparing for a specific fight, because you have no idea what fight may come your way, so I've developed a carry posture that prepares me for a wide variety of possibilities while maintaining good concealability and a minimal interference with how I conduct my daily business. This equation will be different for everyone. For me, this means a double stack compact in 9mm with two additional mags and extra toys including medical either in the vehicle or sometimes in the labtop case. That's the base level, but as G-12 pointed out earlier, load out changes as circumstances dictate. That could mean a subcompact single stack for concealability, or something more substantial in a small pack.
I'll tell you what I don't carry.... a J-frame without a reload.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 05/16/21.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that it is impossible to be prepared 100% for every conceivable situation. One can't walk around with 500 rds for their AR along with a few grenades.
I'd rather have an accurate semi auto pistol with a double stack mag, giving me a better weapon than any jframe, by its increased capacity and easier to hit with
I'm sure that YOU could come up with scenarios that a platoon would be needed to deal with
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be provocative here. When someone says worst case scenario, what does that mean? And how did they arrive at their definition? As you say, common sense tells us that we can't be prepared for everything, so how does one decide what to prepare for?
I agree with you, I'd rather have the pistol as well. You said you carried a reload as well. How did you decide on one, none, or two extra magazines? I'm interested in how people decide, not so much what they decide on.
It's very simple. What can you reasonably carry that will give you the greatest capabilities in the widest variety of situations.
You are not preparing for a specific fight, because you have no idea what fight may come your way, so I've developed a carry posture that prepares me for a wide variety of possibilities while maintaining good concealability and a minimal interference with how I conduct my daily business. This equation will be different for everyone. For me, this means a double stack compact in 9mm with two additional mags and extra toys including medical either in the vehicle or sometimes in the labtop case. That's the base level, but as G-12 pointed out earlier, load out changes are circumstances dictate. That could mean a subcompact single stack for concealability, or something more substantial in a small pack.
I'll tell you what I don't carry.... a J-frame without a reload.
Very well stated
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
And as far as police are concerned, those stats are accurate and proof positive I can outshoot most of them and as to dealing with stress, I think I can do that better than most.. So yeah, it was an interesting study.
Right on man.
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
These threads make it apparent who has or has not taken high level training and who does the work to achieve and maintain competency. I have been schooled regularly since 1980 on my own dime and while getting paid. I learned a lot and progressed to a certain level of competence. I tested myself for years by competing regularly in USPSA, IDPA and Inter agency matches.
Learning is a process of evolution and everything that I think and do has changed over time.
Since 9/11 guys like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, John McPhee, Kyle DeFoor, Travis Haley and others have made training based on real life experience and a dedication to excellence available to us normal folks. Simply stated modern weapons, tactics and procedures are vastly different and far superior from those of "the good old days"
Those that fail to recognize that fact cling to the old ways and sound foolish when trying to defend their lack of self improvement.
as always,YMMV
mike r
Wait, you mean guys with tons of real world, post 9/11 experience don't use 1980's and 1990's tactics anymore?!?!??
Ain't it amazing. What is more of a shocker is how many folks still believe that they can predict the future. Modern trainers don't quote statistics and tell you what will "probably" occur. They demonstrate a path that allows those that will put in the effort to maximize their potential and therefore be more prepared for any event. Mindset is a topic that the pros have taught since I was a child and is still the foundation for clear thought and focused training.
As far as worst case scenarios, mine is failing to respond effectively because I was too lazy or complacent to learn.
Jorge, if you think you are good enough you are fooling yourself.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
It is pretty much impossible to constantly be prepared for the worst case scenario unless you are carrying an AR, extra mags, wearing body armor and employing a point man. I feel it’s enough to carry a a 9MM or a .45 semi auto (or a .357 or other revolver), reloads and do your practicing at both short and linger ranges. Mind set is important as well. May the Force be with you!
It is pretty much impossible to constantly be prepared for the worst case scenario unless you are carrying an AR, extra mags, wearing body armor and employing a point man.
I disagree. Tactics may need to change a bit, if possible, and the outcome may vary, just like anything else in life.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
Phrases like "worst case scenario" get thrown around way too carelessly.
No, but people do pretend to take obviously hyperbolic phrases literally in an effort to seem intelligent way too often.
Sorry you think that. I would have thought my subsequent posts made clear that I know I am decidedly un-intelligent when it comes to these matters and am trying to learn what "worse case scenario" means to those who have a take on that. I only have the words in someone's post to go by and the phrase tells me little or nothing about how much firepower is desirable to have on hand and how that is decided on. I'll admit I got a little snarky when I couldn't get a direct answer to that. I do try to ask intelligent questions, sorry if that bothered you.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
... And as far as police are concerned, those stats are accurate and proof positive I can outshoot most of them and as to dealing with stress, I think I can do that better than most.. So yeah, it was an interesting study.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
[ Jorge, if you think you are good enough you are fooling yourself.
mike r
Good enough for what? to shoot at a target better than most? then the answer is yes. As to a combat situation involving a gunfight? I have no idea. My only experiences in that regard are the whispy puffs of AAA...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
[ Jorge, if you think you are good enough you are fooling yourself.
mike r
Good enough for what? to shoot at a target better than most? then the answer is yes. As to a combat situation involving a gunfight? I have no idea. My only experiences in that regard are the whispy puffs of AAA...
I'd wager that a retired fighter pilot would have nerves of steel and perform well in any stressful situation
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
How are you prepared to handle it?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I'd wager that a retired fighter pilot Torpedo bomber would have nerves of steel and perform well in any stressful situation
Fixed..... I have no ego...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
There seems to be a mindset among many gun owners in which they feel that simply because they own a gun they are now a gunfighter.
Are you directing that toward gun owners in general, or the posters on this thread. Take a look at who's actually posting. I see a lot of vet, guy who wore, or still wear a badge, competitive shooters, trainers, and more than a few who've actually been shot at. Not everyone behind a keyboard is just a keyboard commando.
There's a lot of real been-there-done-that guys on this forum.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I wonder if these stats are a chicken-egg situation.
If most concealed carriers carry small round count pistols and primarily practice at close range, should we be surprised that most civilian shootings involve low round counts at close range?......Which convince more folks to carry small round count pistols and practice at close range.
Love or hate him - Clint sorta touches on this with some stats from the 80's vs 90's. Crux is basically - regardless of platform, people tend to shoot till empty and that is different than shooting with hits. 2 different numbers.
I would choose Jorge for landing a plane on an aircraft carrier. And I would choose a guy like Jim Cirillo to win a gunfight.
I need to be clear again it seems. . My remarks had NOTHING to do with gunfighting, NONE and I said as much. My only comments were with marksmanship and the less than impressive stats put forth by police departments and yes to an extent one's ability to handle stress (incidentally, myriad studies show the level of stress experienced by Naval Aviators during night carrier landings exceed those of folks in combat). That said, ALL I stated was that I was more comfortable with my 1911 after a life long association with said firearm over a striker fired pistol. That and coupled with what studies show as the number of rounds expended by CIVILIANS in such situations is less than five, i am perfectly fine with my 1911 and certainly more confident in the 45 ACP over the 9mm..
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I would choose Jorge for landing a plane on an aircraft carrier. And I would choose a guy like Jim Cirillo to win a gunfight.
I'd wager that jorgeI would have the basic mental make up that Cirillo had. Bill Allard picked Cirillo because he shot competently. Bill thought that the pressure from competition benefited one in a gun fight. Cirillo said that he felt more pressure in a competition because he had time for it to build but a gunfight happened too quickly
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
To me being prepared means working hard to maintain my skills and fitness. I carry a hi cap 9mm and a spare mag at all times. even at home. I practice presentations and dryfire almost daily. I work out about 10 hrs./week and include break contact drills on a heavy bag. I shoot 100-200 rounds/week in programmed drills all done on a timer.
At age 74 I have no illusions about the savages in our world or my capabilities but I can keep a proper mindset and maximize my potential. The old 3 rounds 3yards paradigm was BS 50 years ago and remains the same today. You will get the fight that your opponents bring and will have little or no warning. Plan accordingly or not, your choice.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Makes you wonder how these goofy criminals that don't even know how to pull their pants up; much less hold a firearm inflict so much damage on civilians and LEOs.
Because all I gather from the chest thumping here is that anyone who chooses to carry a firearm; if it's not a hi-cap plastic 9mm of sorts or if they aren't LEO or Military....they are doomed.
I would choose Jorge for landing a plane on an aircraft carrier. And I would choose a guy like Jim Cirillo to win a gunfight.
I need to be clear again it seems. . My remarks had NOTHING to do with gunfighting, NONE and I said as much. My only comments were with marksmanship and the less than impressive stats put forth by police departments and yes to an extent one's ability to handle stress (incidentally, myriad studies show the level of stress experienced by Naval Aviators during night carrier landings exceed those of folks in combat). That said, ALL I stated was that I was more comfortable with my 1911 after a life long association with said firearm over a striker fired pistol. That and coupled with what studies show as the number of rounds expended by CIVILIANS in such situations is less than five, i am perfectly fine with my 1911 and certainly more confident in the 45 ACP over the 9mm..
Interesting discussion. Been following it from the beginning. Here's what I do. I don't practice presentations or dry fire daily (actually, when I shoot, it's to practice ISU and bullseye). I don't do realistic scenarios. I lift weights and run a little, mostly because I enjoy working out. I don't eyeball every person and do a threat analysis while sitting at the local Denny's. Maybe I should; I'm not in a perpetual condition yellow. I don't want to live like that. Sometimes I even sit with my back to the door. If I still lived in LA or was on another combat tour, I'd probably be more cautious. I carry a 5-shot .38 now, with an extra speed strip and a cheap pocket knife only (the knife is for cutting stuff). I don't think most people are savages (or even really bad), but where I live now it really isn't an issue. Yeah, there's some really bad people out there, but I don't train constantly to take them on. If a group of Mongols ride into my little town, I think I'll be OK. I'll just stay home. Bob
Makes you wonder how these goofy criminals that don't even know how to pull their pants up; much less hold a firearm inflict so much damage on civilians and LEOs.
Because all I gather from the chest thumping here is that anyone who chooses to carry a firearm; if it's not a hi-cap plastic 9mm of sorts or if they aren't LEO or Military....they are doomed.
No one was ever in a gunfight until the first time
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Makes you wonder how these goofy criminals that don't even know how to pull their pants up; much less hold a firearm inflict so much damage on civilians and LEOs.
I'm definitely NOT a gunfighter and when I was military age Jimmy Carter was president and I refused to go in with a commander in chief such as him, just what happened. I've been around guns all my life, shot on many rifle and pistol teams and hunting. I made a career, over 40 years, as a union electrician in Chicago and worked in areas of the city the cops wouldn't even go into, or so it seamed! Got out of more than one situation with just a 26oz electrician's straight claw hammer, but then they didn't have guns either, just similar stuff. I do carry now and train/practice what I can. In 2017 I required major spinal surgery and can, pretty much, no longer run or fight physically (still have the tradesman's mouth though!), so I carry and it does give me a measure of comfort, but scares the crap out of me too, all at the same time. But I'm not in those previous areas anymore, and it's actually pretty quiet where I live. But Chicago is still only 40 miles away (Waukegan is closer!) with a highway system between here and there. You can "what if" yourself to a frazil, you can also get in a head on collision going to get a gallon of milk. To me, worse case scenario is my family needing me and me not being able to be there. I do/train/carry what I think is more than adequate, but then, I hope I never have to find out if it is or not! To all you been there and done that guys, I thank you and wish you nothing but the best. Also, no one knows what they'll do when it hits the fan. You may think you know what you'll do, but until it happens, you really don't. At least that's my opinion. I've had some really close, really scary bear encounters where it was me or it, I'm still here. Don't know if that trend will continue, every time seams very different. All I can say, is when it happens, it happens fast. And I get the training so it's reflex action. There's no definitive answer and I'm done ramblin on! Continue to practice with what you choose to use and be the best you can with it.
It isn't what happens to you that defines you, it's what you DO about what happens to you that defines you!
These threads make it apparent who has or has not taken high level training and who does the work to achieve and maintain competency. I have been schooled regularly since 1980 on my own dime and while getting paid. I learned a lot and progressed to a certain level of competence. I tested myself for years by competing regularly in USPSA, IDPA and Inter agency matches.
Learning is a process of evolution and everything that I think and do has changed over time.
Since 9/11 guys like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, John McPhee, Kyle DeFoor, Travis Haley and others have made training based on real life experience and a dedication to excellence available to us normal folks. Simply stated modern weapons, tactics and procedures are vastly different and far superior from those of "the good old days"
Those that fail to recognize that fact cling to the old ways and sound foolish when trying to defend their lack of self improvement.
as always,YMMV
mike r
I guess I'm still a bit confused about what the differences are between "the old ways" and "the new ways" you refer to actually are. I don't mind sounding foolish, if my questions lead to some learning. But as you say, YMMV.
In the past 10 years I've taken training from Tim Lau and Hilton Yam, Clint Smith, Pat Rogers, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Givens, and about a dozen other lesser-known trainers at the annual IALEFI Conference, Gunsite, and other tactical venues. Before that I took training from some really old guys like Jim Cirillo, Massad Ayoob, John Farnham, Henk Iversen, Larry Vickers, and a few others of that ilk.
Maybe those guys haven't killed enough people recently enough to qualify as "far superior" in your eyes? Does taking training from them qualify me as signs of a lack of self improvement? Just asking...
In the time period you've alluded to, late 1980's onward, I've also done a fair bit of IDPA and USPSA competition, won quite a few gongs and knick-knacks, some state championships, some regional championships. and so forth. But I have to confess, I haven't killed anybody, ever, so I realize I'm pretty much chopped liver if the credibility of a shooter is based on his body count.
But my own obvious ineptitude notwithstanding, I'm still scratching my head about the specifics of your comments, and here's what I've noticed.
It seems to me that "the old guys", like Cirillo and Ayoob and Farnham, all of whom I know or have known personally and have taken training from, never taught anything I would consider to be incompatible with the things "the new guys" like Lau and Lam and Givens and Smith teach today. At law enforcement conferences like IALEFI-ATC, I've seen a gradual change in weapons and tactics training over the years, but certainly nothing that says to me that the nature of firearms, bullets, or ballistics has undergone a revolutionary change. Maybe I haven't taken training from the right "new guys", I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.
So again, I ask you to be specific: what is it that was so flawed about "the old ways", and what is so much better about "the new ways"? Don't just drop names, please give some specifics here.
I suspect you have some valid points and I think they bear discussion.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
I have trained under Farnam and Ayoob, and I concur with DocRoc. Some details have changed, but the training I got nearly 30 years ago would serve anyone today quite well. The biggest difference would probably be the equipment.
There seems to be a mindset among many gun owners in which they feel that simply because they own a gun they are now a gunfighter.
Are you directing that toward gun owners in general, or the posters on this thread. Take a look at who's actually posting. I see a lot of vet, guy who wore, or still wear a badge, competitive shooters, trainers, and more than a few who've actually been shot at. Not everyone behind a keyboard is just a keyboard commando.
There's a lot of real been-there-done-that guys on this forum.
It is a general observation. Go to the gun store, or log into most any gun talk forum and there are plenty of blowhards spreading all sorts of bovine feces all trying very hard to convince themselves they are the next coming of Wild Bill Hickok. A Keltec .380 in an Uncle Mike's nylon holster, some Utube videos and they are set.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Well Doc, and others I guess my belief in human evolution has ruffled some feathers. Doc do you still use the same equipment techniques and practices in the ER as you did in the '80s or have you followed and kept up w/ the significant advances and continued to learn and revise your knowledge and skill base?
Who remembers when gun guys and their instructors argued the value of weaver vs. isoceles and .45 vs 9mm and putting a roll of quarters in your jacket pocket so you could clear your 1911 from your leather holster worn a 4 o clock.
Do you recall when IALEFFI and others taught that any hit was a good hit and COM was real good and mere mortals shouldn't take head shots because they actually moved.
Do you still shoot from a weaver and side step to "get off the X and wear Your Sportif stretch cargo shorts and logo polo to matches with your baseball shoes? Fug no.
The old boys laid down a knowledge base that has been improved upon by modern warriors and made available to those that wish to improve.
As to specifics can you shoot w/ surgical accuracy and discriminate targets from innocents while moving through a crowd in less than optimal light conditions?
I will repeat: If you think you are good enough you are probably wrong.
again YMMV
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
So again, I ask you to be specific: what is it that was so flawed about "the old ways", and what is so much better about "the new ways"? Don't just drop names, please give some specifics here.
I don't know about Mike, but I'll offer a few changes that I've observed of the last 18 years. Some of them might sound small, but in practice they're not.
Using "combat effective" as an accuracy standard. "Focus on the front sight" "Jerking the trigger" "Slow down on your trigger press" "Lean into the gun to absorb recoil" "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" 60 / 40 grip pressure
Some of that is still taught, but not by anyone I'll listen to. And more ridiculous stuff than that has been offered up as good advice by respected members of this forum before.
There seems to be a mindset among many gun owners in which they feel that simply because they own a gun they are now a gunfighter.
Are you directing that toward gun owners in general, or the posters on this thread. Take a look at who's actually posting. I see a lot of vet, guy who wore, or still wear a badge, competitive shooters, trainers, and more than a few who've actually been shot at. Not everyone behind a keyboard is just a keyboard commando.
There's a lot of real been-there-done-that guys on this forum.
It is a general observation. Go to the gun store, or log into most any gun talk forum and there are plenty of blowhards spreading all sorts of bovine feces all trying very hard to convince themselves they are the next coming of Wild Bill Hickok. A Keltec .380 in an Uncle Mike's nylon holster, some Utube videos and they are set.
Ok. As a general observation, we are in agreement.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Any training should be approached with the mindset it will contain some good points, some OK points and some chaff. Use what works better for you, in your applications, and file the rest.
Last edited by SargeMO; 05/18/21.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
I would choose Jorge for landing a plane on an aircraft carrier. And I would choose a guy like Jim Cirillo to win a gunfight.
I need to be clear again it seems. . My remarks had NOTHING to do with gunfighting, NONE and I said as much. My only comments were with marksmanship and the less than impressive stats put forth by police departments and yes to an extent one's ability to handle stress (incidentally, myriad studies show the level of stress experienced by Naval Aviators during night carrier landings exceed those of folks in combat). That said, ALL I stated was that I was more comfortable with my 1911 after a life long association with said firearm over a striker fired pistol. That and coupled with what studies show as the number of rounds expended by CIVILIANS in such situations is less than five, i am perfectly fine with my 1911 and certainly more confident in the 45 ACP over the 9mm..
Add to that, "Make the first one count".
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
DOC: Here's what I gleaned from the "old v new guy" discussion: If you carry anything with less than 15 rounds, you're an old guy that's gonna get killed by the average bad guy who holds his gun sideways as the empties his 17+ round magazine into you..AND ESPECIALLY if you carry a 1911, you might as well shoot yourself because we all know that's an archaic POS that by immaculate conception, stopped working when the 21sy Century arrived.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
...........AND ESPECIALLY if you carry a 1911, you might as well shoot yourself because we all know that's an archaic POS that by immaculate conception, stopped working when the 21sy Century arrived.
I missed that recall. Do I need to turn mine in or just send them to a museum? I wondered why .45 ACP was hard to come by these days.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
I liked the mental gymnastics so many did when Glock came out with the 43 and 48 and then had to say "single stack" is enough for EDC.
As to old vs new - I don't know, enjoy reading the back and forth. I don't have numbers but I feel like a lot of people get into a gun fight that don't have the training listed here and end up alive. Not saying a person should specifically NOT get training but some is better than none and some likely puts you in the top 2% of those that carry or those that shoot. People get golf lessons, take courses at the local tech school, Mastery online courses etc - Americans aren't against learning things but when it comes to shooting - people just don't do it so those that do, quickly move ahead. Even if the training may be older or not as extensive as the other guy getting training.
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
How are you prepared to handle it?
I'm not. In my current work and home circumstances, I don't feel compelled to carry a weapon on my person. But as I see our culture deteriorating, I may soon change my behavior to reflect that. I have several handguns now and am trying to learn to become proficient with them, although COVID and the ammo shortage has slowed down that process. I am sure I will never be anywhere near as capable as any of you. Knowing that has made me all the more hesitant to begin carrying; I don't think I am proficient enough to be carrying. At this point, if I were to begin carrying I would probably be in RGK's camp vs. yours, Antelope Snipers, or the many others who carry more firepower, although that too may change. Despite what you and others may think, the only reason for my questions has been to learn from you.
This thread seems to be telling me that people choose what they choose based on a lot of different factors, but gun fight stats don't seem to have much influence on anyone's thinking.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
How are you prepared to handle it?
I'm not. In my current work and home circumstances, I don't feel compelled to carry a weapon on my person. But as I see our culture deteriorating, I may soon change my behavior to reflect that. I have several handguns now and am trying to learn to become proficient with them, although COVID and the ammo shortage has slowed down that process. I am sure I will never be anywhere near as capable as any of you. Knowing that has made me all the more hesitant to begin carrying; I don't think I am proficient enough to be carrying. At this point, if I were to begin carrying I would probably be in RGK's camp vs. yours, Antelope Snipers, or the many others who carry more firepower, although that too may change. Despite what you and others may think, the only reason for my questions has been to learn from you.
This thread seems to be telling me that people choose what they choose based on a lot of different factors, but gun fight stats don't seem to have much influence on anyone's thinking.
Basing decisions off of stats mean you are preparing for an average situation not the extreme.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Agree. In a normal distribution, there is a 50-50 chance that a given situation will require more than the average. My question has always been how are knowledgeable people deciding where along the spectrum of possible shooting events one should be positioned.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
DOC: Here's what I gleaned from the "old v new guy" discussion: If you carry anything with less than 15 rounds, you're an old guy that's gonna get killed by the average bad guy who holds his gun sideways as the empties his 17+ round magazine into you..AND ESPECIALLY if you carry a 1911, you might as well shoot yourself because we all know that's an archaic POS that by immaculate conception, stopped working when the 21sy Century arrived.
Well said, but it is to be expected.
“You should tell someone what you know. There should be a history, so that men can learn from it.”
He smiled. “Men do not learn from history. Each generation believes itself brighter than the last, each believes it can survive the mistakes of the older ones. Each discovers each old thing and they throw up their hands and say ‘See! Look what I have found! Look upon what I know!’ And each believes it is something new.”
Louis L’Amour The Californios
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
Agree. In a normal distribution, there is a 50-50 chance that a given situation will require more than the average. My question has always been how are knowledgeable people deciding where along the spectrum of possible shooting events one should be positioned.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of an authority as to what's best or what others should do. I will simply say what I've done.
I started carrying faithfully, everyday, about 10 years ago. I bought a 1911 LW Commander (8+1 capacity). I used both IWB and OWB holsters. I shot it fine and have no complaints about it. In fact, I still have it. However...
At some point, I joined the group of people who believe that the 9mm (loaded with good ammunition) is just as effective for self defense as the .45 ACP. My LW Commander was the same size/weight as a fully loaded Glock 19 but held 9 rounds instead of 16. I also decided that the multiple safeties of a 1911 were not an advantage, nor was the increased recoil.
Now don't get me wrong--I love 1911's! I absolutely love them--the look, the history, the way they feel in my hand, everything!! But...for saving my own life, a G19 with 17 or 21 round mags as spares, is a much better choice.
So, getting back to statistical probabilities, I think I am better prepared for a worse-than-average gunfight with a G19 over a 1911. YMMV.
Last edited by Waders; 05/18/21. Reason: I can't spell
Years ago I read an article about the guy who stopped the mass shooting at the Trolley Square Mall in SLC. He had a Kimber 1911 with no spare mag and had one round left in the chamber when the cavalry showed up. He accomplished what he needed to, but said it was the worst feeling imaginable.
The most concerning thing I’ve seen in this thread has been the underestimation of the enemy. Talking about thugs who don’t pull up their pants or whatever.
That’s a caricature of the bad guy. That’s the stooge, the hanger-on, the lackey. That’s not the bad guy.
The bad guy will Jack. You. Up. He’s bigger and faster and stronger and meaner than you and he’s lived harder for longer than you. You can disagree, but it’ll only be because you haven’t met him yet.
There aren't any sacred cows. I can easily understand why a person might choose a hi-cap 9; and just as easily understand why somebody who is entirely proficient with a 45 caliber 1911 and can run it on autopilot, might choose that pistol. I split the difference most days with a 14-15 round 40 S&W.
Most of this caliber war horsechit is is recreational arguing and navel-gazing. All of these have proven capable in the hands of people who shoot them well. I don't see a ton of difference between them in soft tissue/peripheral hits, but when major skeletal structures come into play I believe is where bigger, heavier bullets earn their keep.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
Just because I'm really left brained, could someone describe a "less than average", "average" and "higher than average" gunfight? I.e. the left edge, middle and right edge of the bell curve.
Are we talking a lone ghurka vs. a shi-ite load of Taliban on the right end and six cops with drawn guns vs. a 90 year old legally blind woman on the left side? I'm just trying to get a visualization on what those terms mean.
IIRC, Applegate's book (yeah, Jurassic period old school) described an average gunfight as generally happening in low light, taking 2-3 seconds and being decided in under 6 rounds. Is that still average?
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
DOC: Here's what I gleaned from the "old v new guy" discussion: If you carry anything with less than 15 rounds, you're an old guy that's gonna get killed by the average bad guy who holds his gun sideways as the empties his 17+ round magazine into you..AND ESPECIALLY if you carry a 1911, you might as well shoot yourself because we all know that's an archaic POS that by immaculate conception, stopped working when the 21sy Century arrived.
LMAO Jorge, you having been an officer explains the product of your gleaning.
I lift my glass to all who served and especially to those who provided CAS and bombed the NVA. Even squid ossifers.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
The most concerning thing I’ve seen in this thread has been the underestimation of the enemy. Talking about thugs who don’t pull up their pants or whatever.
That’s a caricature of the bad guy. That’s the stooge, the hanger-on, the lackey. That’s not the bad guy.
The bad guy will Jack. You. Up. He’s bigger and faster and stronger and meaner than you and he’s lived harder for longer than you. You can disagree, but it’ll only be because you haven’t met him yet.
If you keep playing the reality card someone will counter with " and that's why I carry god's gun"
One Shot One Kill
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
I know that several on here have said very similar things as the article. But, there are still many on here who think they will only get the fight that they've planned for and their little snub-nose will do the trick. I hope that they never have to have that fight, and if they do, they are right. I hope that I'll never have to get in one of those situations, but if I do I'll be as prepared as I can be for the worst case scenario (both in practice and in what I'm carrying).
What is that worst case scenario? And how are you equipped to handle it?
Originally Posted by jwp475
My moto is prepair for the worst, hope for the best
And again, what is the worst? And how are you prepared for it?
How are you prepared to handle it?
I'm not. In my current work and home circumstances, I don't feel compelled to carry a weapon on my person. But as I see our culture deteriorating, I may soon change my behavior to reflect that. I have several handguns now and am trying to learn to become proficient with them, although COVID and the ammo shortage has slowed down that process. I am sure I will never be anywhere near as capable as any of you. Knowing that has made me all the more hesitant to begin carrying; I don't think I am proficient enough to be carrying. At this point, if I were to begin carrying I would probably be in RGK's camp vs. yours, Antelope Snipers, or the many others who carry more firepower, although that too may change. Despite what you and others may think, the only reason for my questions has been to learn from you.
This thread seems to be telling me that people choose what they choose based on a lot of different factors, but gun fight stats don't seem to have much influence on anyone's thinking.
TYG,
I described my current carry situation, but I didn't start where I am now. Back in the day when I lived in a small town on the wind swept Wyoming Prairie, daily carry for me was a 6" barreled .357mag under the front seat with a couple speed loader and an extra box of ammo and I never felt under gunned. Of course, the only brown and black hoards I had to worry about then were of the Herford and Angus varieties. Heck I even carried my 6 gun real old school with 5 in the cylinder and an empty chamber under the hammer.
After moving to the big city, I progressed through a double action semi-auto, both single and double stack, a double stack 1911, and finally landed where I am today. Of course a lot's changed down here in the last 20 years, and we've seen a variety of threats evolve, from more aggressive panhandler on high THC pot, flash mobs, BLM riots, knockout gangs, not to mention our local crazies, from Columbine, the Aurora Theater, Boulder King Souper, Thornton Walmart, Life Church, Planned Parent Hood in The Springs, and a dozen other news worthy events. As a consequence I've evolved with the times.
I don't buy into the hypothesis that you have the level of dedication displayed by the top tier carriers to carry. In my mind, the most important part is just starting. Once you start, work to make it a discipline, and experiment as you go. Exercise good self reflection on your practices and how they align with your observation of the reality you live day-to-day, and adjust accordingly. Those adjustments could be in miscellaneous equipment like holsters, magazine carriers, etc. or the gun you carry, a new training class, or just how you practice at the range, or at home.
Don't worry that you're not "gunfighter level" when you start, just start, pay attention, and work to improve. Over time you'll gain confidence, which can serve as a deterrence in and of it self.
Best of luck with your journey into EDC.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The most concerning thing I’ve seen in this thread has been the underestimation of the enemy. Talking about thugs who don’t pull up their pants or whatever.
That’s a caricature of the bad guy. That’s the stooge, the hanger-on, the lackey. That’s not the bad guy.
The bad guy will Jack. You. Up. He’s bigger and faster and stronger and meaner than you and he’s lived harder for longer than you. You can disagree, but it’ll only be because you haven’t met him yet.
He used to live right next to me. 6' 6" of genuine OG. He spent more time in prison than out, and was one serious piece of sold muscle. I treated him with respect, and we got along just fine, until he want back into the clink for violating he parole when he beat of his pretty engineer wife.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The most concerning thing I’ve seen in this thread has been the underestimation of the enemy. Talking about thugs who don’t pull up their pants or whatever.
That’s a caricature of the bad guy. That’s the stooge, the hanger-on, the lackey. That’s not the bad guy.
The bad guy will Jack. You. Up. He’s bigger and faster and stronger and meaner than you and he’s lived harder for longer than you. You can disagree, but it’ll only be because you haven’t met him yet.
"When you think you're tired, when you want to rest, when you think you've trained enough, remember this: the enemy may be cold, hungry, and the only thing clean about him may be his weapon. But he's a true believer. He's not afraid to die. He expects to die. And he wants as many of you and your men to die first"
And, the one a Vietnam vet said to some of us before going through the breach: "Your first gunfight's gonna be like the first time you got laid: it will be over really fast, you won't be nearly as good as you imagine you'll be, and the best possible outcome is that you're just good enough to get the chance to do it again."
A gun is a tool. Having one doesn't make a man a gunfighter any more than owning a table saw makes a man a master cabinetmaker.
Agree. In a normal distribution, there is a 50-50 chance that a given situation will require more than the average. My question has always been how are knowledgeable people deciding where along the spectrum of possible shooting events one should be positioned.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of an authority as to what's best or what others should do. I will simply say what I've done.
I started carrying faithfully, everyday, about 10 years ago. I bought a 1911 LW Commander (8+1 capacity). I used both IWB and OWB holsters. I shot it fine and have no complaints about it. In fact, I still have it. However...
At some point, I joined the group of people who believe that the 9mm (loaded with good ammunition) is just as effective for self defense as the .45 ACP. My LW Commander was the same size/weight as a fully loaded Glock 19 but held 9 rounds instead of 16. I also decided that the multiple safeties of a 1911 were not an advantage, nor was the increased recoil.
Now don't get me wrong--I love 1911's! I absolutely love them--the look, the history, the way they feel in my hand, everything!! But...for saving my own life, a G19 with 17 or 21 round mags as spares, is a much better choice.
So, getting back to statistical probabilities, I think I am better prepared for a worse-than-average gunfight with a G19 over a 1911. YMMV.
Nothing wrong with that statement OR choice. Edited to add; Alvin C York took out over 20 krauts with his 1911.....
Last edited by jorgeI; 05/19/21.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Agree. In a normal distribution, there is a 50-50 chance that a given situation will require more than the average. My question has always been how are knowledgeable people deciding where along the spectrum of possible shooting events one should be positioned.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of an authority as to what's best or what others should do. I will simply say what I've done.
I started carrying faithfully, everyday, about 10 years ago. I bought a 1911 LW Commander (8+1 capacity). I used both IWB and OWB holsters. I shot it fine and have no complaints about it. In fact, I still have it. However...
At some point, I joined the group of people who believe that the 9mm (loaded with good ammunition) is just as effective for self defense as the .45 ACP. My LW Commander was the same size/weight as a fully loaded Glock 19 but held 9 rounds instead of 16. I also decided that the multiple safeties of a 1911 were not an advantage, nor was the increased recoil.
Now don't get me wrong--I love 1911's! I absolutely love them--the look, the history, the way they feel in my hand, everything!! But...for saving my own life, a G19 with 17 or 21 round mags as spares, is a much better choice.
So, getting back to statistical probabm better prepared for a worse-than-average gunfight with a G19 over a 1911. YMMV.
Nothing wrong with that statement OR choice. Edited to add; Alvin C York took out over 20 krauts with his 1911.....
Are you sure about that...? Seems like the number killed with the pistol was 6. Still a tremendous feat, but I think the others were killed by Corporal York with his accurate rifle fire. He said he was "sharp shooting!"
Last edited by MOGC; 05/19/21.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of an authority as to what's best or what others should do. I will simply say what I've done.
I started carrying faithfully, everyday, about 10 years ago. I bought a 1911 LW Commander (8+1 capacity). I used both IWB and OWB holsters. I shot it fine and have no complaints about it. In fact, I still have it. However...
At some point, I joined the group of people who believe that the 9mm (loaded with good ammunition) is just as effective for self defense as the .45 ACP. My LW Commander was the same size/weight as a fully loaded Glock 19 but held 9 rounds instead of 16. I also decided that the multiple safeties of a 1911 were not an advantage, nor was the increased recoil.
Now don't get me wrong--I love 1911's! I absolutely love them--the look, the history, the way they feel in my hand, everything!! But...for saving my own life, a G19 with 17 or 21 round mags as spares, is a much better choice.
So, getting back to statistical probabilities, I think I am better prepared for a worse-than-average gunfight with a G19 over a 1911. YMMV.
Interesting and I can agree with that.
Curious (purely academic and not poking holes here) - what's the tipping point on capacity? Take platform out of it as 45ACP is available in 1911 or Glock/Sig etc.
If you could do 12 45acp or 15 9mm - is it always "more is better" and that's all there is or is there a number where once hit, you'd be willing to use a different cartridge?
I'm a 1911 guy that happens to carry a G19. I don't necessarily feel less effective with the 1911 but given my locale, my odds of needing either are about the same as Joe Biden writing a best seller on astro-physics. I still end up carrying the G19 all the time tho.
To Wader's point, I too feel better with more rounds ( I came to this decision about 2 years ago) but could not figure out what to carry. I too love my 1911's but chose to carry my M&P Shield for concealed carry. The lack of rounds in the Shield always bothered me and try as I might (believe me I tried) I just can not like a Glock. I do own one and have owned several over the years, but they did not carry good for me and at best I shot them ok. Fast forward to a few months back and I bought the Sig 365XL. Love everything about that gun except as I have stated in other threads, there is something about the grip that "at draw" I do not line up correctly. I got to thinking, I love my Shield so much, why fight it, so I bought the new Shield Plus and now I have more rounds, can carry it just like my other one.
I am thinking about a M&P compact for when concealment allows a little bigger gun just to increase the round count a little more. I have not committed to the idea yet but I am thinking about it but would like to see one in person and compare it size wise to my Shield + and get a better idea of how big it really is.
I may not be smart but I can lift heavy objects
I have a shotgun so I have no need for a 30-06.....
Teal, maybe the size, weight, bulk and shootability of a G21 vs. G19 is a factor? If a guy wants a high capacity . 45 that comes with a price. Cue the .40 S&W fans, three, two, one....
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Agree. In a normal distribution, there is a 50-50 chance that a given situation will require more than the average. My question has always been how are knowledgeable people deciding where along the spectrum of possible shooting events one should be positioned.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of an authority as to what's best or what others should do. I will simply say what I've done.
I started carrying faithfully, everyday, about 10 years ago. I bought a 1911 LW Commander (8+1 capacity). I used both IWB and OWB holsters. I shot it fine and have no complaints about it. In fact, I still have it. However...
At some point, I joined the group of people who believe that the 9mm (loaded with good ammunition) is just as effective for self defense as the .45 ACP. My LW Commander was the same size/weight as a fully loaded Glock 19 but held 9 rounds instead of 16. I also decided that the multiple safeties of a 1911 were not an advantage, nor was the increased recoil.
Now don't get me wrong--I love 1911's! I absolutely love them--the look, the history, the way they feel in my hand, everything!! But...for saving my own life, a G19 with 17 or 21 round mags as spares, is a much better choice.
So, getting back to statistical probabm better prepared for a worse-than-average gunfight with a G19 over a 1911. YMMV.
Nothing wrong with that statement OR choice. Edited to add; Alvin C York took out over 20 krauts with his 1911.....
Are you sure about that...? Seems like the number killed with the pistol was 6. Still a tremendous feat, but I think the others were killed by Corporal York with his accurate rifle fire. He said he was "sharp shooting!"
Not really about the exact number. All I know for sure he used a combination of his rifle and (measly) 7+1 1911...
Also edited to add: my second most used carry gun was for many years, a G31 now replaced by a 48 with ONLY 10+1....The horror..
Last edited by jorgeI; 05/19/21.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I think this thread is the most informative and thought provoking that has been on here in a long time. I have enjoyed it immensely and learned from it also. Thanks to all that are participating and keeping it civil.
I think this thread is the most informative and thought provoking that has been on here in a long time. I have enjoyed it immensely and learned from it also. Thanks to all that are participating and keeping it civil.
But, the Orifice and Delphi begs to differ....
Originally Posted by deflave
WTF is interesting about that article?
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Agree. In a normal distribution, there is a 50-50 chance that a given situation will require more than the average. My question has always been how are knowledgeable people deciding where along the spectrum of possible shooting events one should be positioned.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of an authority as to what's best or what others should do. I will simply say what I've done.
I started carrying faithfully, everyday, about 10 years ago. I bought a 1911 LW Commander (8+1 capacity). I used both IWB and OWB holsters. I shot it fine and have no complaints about it. In fact, I still have it. However...
At some point, I joined the group of people who believe that the 9mm (loaded with good ammunition) is just as effective for self defense as the .45 ACP. My LW Commander was the same size/weight as a fully loaded Glock 19 but held 9 rounds instead of 16. I also decided that the multiple safeties of a 1911 were not an advantage, nor was the increased recoil.
Now don't get me wrong--I love 1911's! I absolutely love them--the look, the history, the way they feel in my hand, everything!! But...for saving my own life, a G19 with 17 or 21 round mags as spares, is a much better choice.
So, getting back to statistical probabm better prepared for a worse-than-average gunfight with a G19 over a 1911. YMMV.
Nothing wrong with that statement OR choice. Edited to add; Alvin C York took out over 20 krauts with his 1911.....
Are you sure about that...? Seems like the number killed with the pistol was 6. Still a tremendous feat, but I think the others were killed by Corporal York with his accurate rifle fire. He said he was "sharp shooting!"
Not really about the exact number. All I know for sure he used a combination of his rifle and (measly) 7+1 1911...
Also edited to add: my second most used carry gun was for many years, a G31 now replaced by a 48 with ONLY 10+1....The horror..
Jorgei, They make 15 round steel mags for the G48. Why not pick up a few (if and when you can find them) and have the best of both worlds? And they make double stack 1911's too. I understand your like something of a heft and size that really fills the hands, nothing like a double stack 1911 for that. Of course, even at the commanders size, with two extra mags plus one in the pipe 40 rounds of .45 ACP and a couple pounds of steel weighs heavy on the belt. I like my 1911, but for now, the lighter poly frame and lighter ammo load that affords 6 extra rounds gets the nod.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
So again, I ask you to be specific: what is it that was so flawed about "the old ways", and what is so much better about "the new ways"? Don't just drop names, please give some specifics here.
I don't know about Mike, but I'll offer a few changes that I've observed of the last 18 years. Some of them might sound small, but in practice they're not.
Using "combat effective" as an accuracy standard. "Focus on the front sight" "Jerking the trigger" "Slow down on your trigger press" "Lean into the gun to absorb recoil" "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" 60 / 40 grip pressure
Some of that is still taught, but not by anyone I'll listen to. And more ridiculous stuff than that has been offered up as good advice by respected members of this forum before.
correct, in fact itsbest to elan back at a 30 degree angle, and press the trigger slowly to a 4 count while shooting instinctively, cause in a real fight tere is just not time to find the sights
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
To Wader's point, I too feel better with more rounds ( I came to this decision about 2 years ago) but could not figure out what to carry. I too love my 1911's but chose to carry my M&P Shield for concealed carry. The lack of rounds in the Shield always bothered me and try as I might (believe me I tried) I just can not like a Glock. I do own one and have owned several over the years, but they did not carry good for me and at best I shot them ok. Fast forward to a few months back and I bought the Sig 365XL. Love everything about that gun except as I have stated in other threads, there is something about the grip that "at draw" I do not line up correctly. I got to thinking, I love my Shield so much, why fight it, so I bought the new Shield Plus and now I have more rounds, can carry it just like my other one.
I am thinking about a M&P compact for when concealment allows a little bigger gun just to increase the round count a little more. I have not committed to the idea yet but I am thinking about it but would like to see one in person and compare it size wise to my Shield + and get a better idea of how big it really is.
Pullit, Nothing wrong with not liking the Glock. There's a lot of great alternatives. You mentioned the M&P, but I'd also like to remind people of the CZ P10c, the new Walther PDP, and H&K PV9. IMO the Glock has the edge in simplicity and aftermarket parts, but a good case can be made for each of the above being better guns than the Glock 19.
As for the Sig 365's, I agree with you. They don't feel right in my hands. When drawing from concealment on the timer I need something with a fully hand sized grip so where I can get a proper purchase without any fingers hanging off, such as with the Glock 19 sized frames. Likewise when carrying something shield sized, it's with an extended magazine that accommodates all my fingers on the grip.
The good news is the gun manufacturers are coming out with a lot of new, innovative products in the CCW space. Our options keep getting better and it'll be interesting to see how this space continues to evolve.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Jorgei, They make 15 round steel mags for the G48.
My neighbor has them. According to him, they work fine but they are made of metal and from his research you have to change the plastic mag release button to a metal one.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
My brother has the Walther PDP and he likes it. I have only handled it and not shot it so I can't comment on it. I wish there was a shop that had the CZ around my area, as you are not the only one that has told me they were good. I have not handled or seen an H&K yet.
The point of this thread was size of round vs shots fired (readers digest version). I do think that type/brand of ammo has a lot to do with this as well. I have watched several youtube videos where they shot ballistics gel some covered in clothing and some without. Different brands of ammo were used in side by side comparisons and some did WAY better than others. I say all that to say, after watching these videos, I have chosen a brand and type bullet I feel good about carrying and now have chosen a pistol that gives me more than I had as far as round count goes.
I will never claim to be the pistol shots that some of you are, but I am trying to get better. Until then, I want as many rounds in my pistol as I can get and still keep it concealed with everyday clothing.
I may not be smart but I can lift heavy objects
I have a shotgun so I have no need for a 30-06.....
Jorgei, They make 15 round steel mags for the G48.
My neighbor has them. According to him, they work fine but they are made of metal and from his research you have to change the plastic mag release button to a metal one.
Changing the mag release on a Glock is pretty simple. Heck, building a Glock from the frame up is pretty simple. Youtube and go.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
... I have chosen a brand and type bullet I feel good about carrying and ... I want as many rounds in my pistol as I can get and still keep it concealed with everyday clothing.
Sound logic. You won't get any arguments from me.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 05/19/21.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Jorgei, They make 15 round steel mags for the G48.
My neighbor has them. According to him, they work fine but they are made of metal and from his research you have to change the plastic mag release button to a metal one.
Changing the mag release on a Glock is pretty simple. Heck, building a Glock from the frame up is pretty simple. Youtube and go.
It is.But I'm not messing with "Perfection"...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
To Wader's point, I too feel better with more rounds ( I came to this decision about 2 years ago) but could not figure out what to carry. I too love my 1911's but chose to carry my M&P Shield for concealed carry. The lack of rounds in the Shield always bothered me and try as I might (believe me I tried) I just can not like a Glock. I do own one and have owned several over the years, but they did not carry good for me and at best I shot them ok. Fast forward to a few months back and I bought the Sig 365XL. Love everything about that gun except as I have stated in other threads, there is something about the grip that "at draw" I do not line up correctly. I got to thinking, I love my Shield so much, why fight it, so I bought the new Shield Plus and now I have more rounds, can carry it just like my other one.
I am thinking about a M&P compact for when concealment allows a little bigger gun just to increase the round count a little more. I have not committed to the idea yet but I am thinking about it but would like to see one in person and compare it size wise to my Shield + and get a better idea of how big it really is.
I have had a similar progression.
My winter gun is a 4" M&P 2.0 compact. I shoot it better than my G19.
Shield+ with 13+1 is sooooo much easier to conceal and I shoot it better than a 365 or Hellcat.
Curious (purely academic and not poking holes here) - what's the tipping point on capacity? Take platform out of it as 45ACP is available in 1911 or Glock/Sig etc.
Here’s how I got to where I’m at.
Depending on target size, I can fire accurately 4-5 times per second. And it’s reasonable to assume, based research and anecdotal evidence, that the....Start firing—Threat reacts—Perceive the threat is over—Brain tells me to stop firing—I stop shooting....cycle would take about a second. That’s 4-5 rounds per threat.
So I consider everything in multiples of 5. If it’s a 6 round revolver, that’s one bad guy. I assume there’ll be two bad guys, so a 10 round mag is a minimum for me, and 15 is where I feel comfortable.
That’s not scientific, but it does have more thought in it than “this is probably enough”.
I'm not. In my current work and home circumstances, I don't feel compelled to carry a weapon on my person. But as I see our culture deteriorating, I may soon change my behavior to reflect that. I have several handguns now and am trying to learn to become proficient with them, although COVID and the ammo shortage has slowed down that process. I am sure I will never be anywhere near as capable as any of you. Knowing that has made me all the more hesitant to begin carrying; I don't think I am proficient enough to be carrying. At this point, if I were to begin carrying I would probably be in RGK's camp vs. yours, Antelope Snipers, or the many others who carry more firepower, although that too may change. Despite what you and others may think, the only reason for my questions has been to learn from you.
This thread seems to be telling me that people choose what they choose based on a lot of different factors, but gun fight stats don't seem to have much influence on anyone's thinking.
TYG,
I described my current carry situation, but I didn't start where I am now. Back in the day when I lived in a small town on the wind swept Wyoming Prairie, daily carry for me was a 6" barreled .357mag under the front seat with a couple speed loader and an extra box of ammo and I never felt under gunned. Of course, the only brown and black hoards I had to worry about then were of the Herford and Angus varieties. Heck I even carried my 6 gun real old school with 5 in the cylinder and an empty chamber under the hammer.
After moving to the big city, I progressed through a double action semi-auto, both single and double stack, a double stack 1911, and finally landed where I am today. Of course a lot's changed down here in the last 20 years, and we've seen a variety of threats evolve, from more aggressive panhandler on high THC pot, flash mobs, BLM riots, knockout gangs, not to mention our local crazies, from Columbine, the Aurora Theater, Boulder King Souper, Thornton Walmart, Life Church, Planned Parent Hood in The Springs, and a dozen other news worthy events. As a consequence I've evolved with the times.
I don't buy into the hypothesis that you have the level of dedication displayed by the top tier carriers to carry. In my mind, the most important part is just starting. Once you start, work to make it a discipline, and experiment as you go. Exercise good self reflection on your practices and how they align with your observation of the reality you live day-to-day, and adjust accordingly. Those adjustments could be in miscellaneous equipment like holsters, magazine carriers, etc. or the gun you carry, a new training class, or just how you practice at the range, or at home.
Don't worry that you're not "gunfighter level" when you start, just start, pay attention, and work to improve. Over time you'll gain confidence, which can serve as a deterrence in and of it self.
Best of luck with your journey into EDC.
Baby steps, huh? Point taken. I appreciate your very constructive comments to me and others on this thread.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
Well Doc, and others I guess my belief in human evolution has ruffled some feathers. Doc do you still use the same equipment techniques and practices in the ER as you did in the '80s or have you followed and kept up w/ the significant advances and continued to learn and revise your knowledge and skill base?
Mike, thanks for starting to make an attempt to address my question.
You're quite right, all knowledge bases change with time, and sometimes that happens for the better. However, I strongly disagree with your characterization of this a HUMAN evolution. Biological evolution takes generations to take place, which means since Jeff Cooper's "Modern Technique" of the pistol was written in the 1960's, we have barely completed one generation.
Humans are biologically no different, no more "evolved" than we were in the middle of the last century. We could really go down a rabbit trail here, but you and I BOTH know that the overall physical fitness and educational level of American humans has gone waaaaay downhill in the past 60 years, so if we have "evolved" physically at all, it's been negative.
Similarly, the evolution of training and equipment for gunfighting in the past 60 years has been significant, and for the most part, I agree with you that it has improved. Coppers went on duty in 1961 armed with 38 Special revolvers loaded with standard pressure LRN bullets, and if they were lucky, they had a shotgun in the trunk. The weapons we have today are a lot better than they were back then. The tactics, though... I'll get to that in a minute...
As for medical changes, I've been around long enough to know that many of the "advances" in medical treatment that have come along in the past 30 years have been discarded as useless, or even harmful. For example, I've seen the drug Amiodarone come into fashion no less than 3 times, endorsed by the American Heart Association, then discarded, then re-adopted, then discarded AGAIN, and re-instituted YET AGAIN. Why? Because knowledge evolves, and as we gain experience with stuff, we get a better idea what works great, what doesn't work so great, and what sucks.
THE SAME phenomenon has been happening in firearms training and tactics. Much of the high-speed, low-drag, way-cool stuff that has come along over the past 60 years has turned out to be bull s h i t. And some stuff that has been good has been cast aside.
Here's what I know, at age 67, about the "advances" in modern medicine: stuff comes and goes, but the basics remain the same. People still need to breathe, they need a perfusing heart rhythm, they need a decent blood pressure. Those things haven't changed. The ways we address this have changed somewhat here and there, but for the most part the stuff I learned to do in my residency in the early 90's still works today. And a lot of the stuff the new residents are coming out of their training with doesn't... because they are so heavily indoctrinated into the concept that the Old Ways don't work. So when they come in as new baby ER docs and start slinging their New Ways around and find out it's not so s h i t-hot as they were taught, and that the OId Guys are able to do better work using the Old Ways with a few new wrinkles thrown in, they start their actual practical learning in medicine.
It's the same with firearms and gunfighting. I've spent extensive time with a few guys like Jim Cirillo and Pat Rogers and guys of that generation, on the range and over beers after the guns are put away. Pat Rogers was a great example of an Old Guy who continued learning and adding tools to his toolbox up until the day he died. (And yes, Pat killed a LOT of people in his career.) But Pat said many times over that the fundamentals of defensive shooting have never changed: always have a gun; always pay attention to your threat environment; always put your rounds downrange early and often; never give up.
The fundamentals haven't changed. I've taken training from more than one new hotshot, including some oh-so-sexy ex-Navy SEALs, who have killed a lot of people (they say) that was absolute garbage because they denigrated the fundamentals and insisted that their New Way was the only way to train and fight.
Originally Posted by lvmiker
Who remembers when gun guys and their instructors argued the value of weaver vs. isoceles and .45 vs 9mm and putting a roll of quarters in your jacket pocket so you could clear your 1911 from your leather holster worn a 4 o clock.
Do you recall when IALEFFI and others taught that any hit was a good hit and COM was real good and mere mortals shouldn't take head shots because they actually moved. 1985, thou Do you still shoot from a weaver and side step to "get off the X and wear Your Sportif stretch cargo shorts and logo polo to matches with your baseball shoes? Fug no.
Now you're finally giving some specifics. Yes, some of that stuff is garbage. But some of it wasn't and isn't.
For instance, I carry a 1911 more often than I carry a Glock. I shoot my 1911's better than my Glocks. And no, it isn't from lack of training or trying. Shee-it, I have actually worn out at least one Glock shooting the mofo. I still shoot 1911's better. And yes, I carry my pistol on my strongside hip, "at 4 o'clock". It works. It's tried and true. I can still draw from concealment in under 1.5 seconds on a shot timer.
Do I care about 9mm vs 45 ACP? Nope. Not even gonna get into that. What I WILL say is that the quality of the good carry ammo we have today is miles better than what we had in 1985, and we all know it. Guess what? Even the Old Guys that you trashed earlier in this thread know this, and carry good quality JHP ammo.
Originally Posted by lvmiker
The old boys laid down a knowledge base that has been improved upon by modern warriors and made available to those that wish to improve.
Yeah, no. There are plenty of "modern warriors" who are all hat and no cattle. Just like every generation, there are people today who study and learn with a critical eye to what actually works, and turn around and pass that on to the rest of us without making it all about themselves. And there are a bunch of others who grab hold of a piece of the truth, attach their enormous egos to it, and then make it their mission to knock down every other idea and trainer who they perceive as a threat.
Speaking of which, and I'll preface this by saying I gotta agree with you on the nonsense of "any hit is a good hit" (I thought we had put that one in a deep grave decades ago, but no...) I was at an IALEFI-ATC in 2013 or 2014 and one of the high-speed low-drag way-cool sshitt-hot New Guys Who's Killed a Lot of People In The Sandbox was teaching a class and looked me directly in the eye and said my Tactical Anatomy training was garbage and that any hit is a good hit, and he was gonna shoot the s h i t out of Center Mass because "that's what really works". As you may guess, I smiled and told him to have a nice day and walked off "his" range then and there, but a whole lot of guys who worship at the altar of Guys Who've Killed A Lot of People stayed and soaked up every word the man said.
Training people to make effective hits, which is what my training system does, improves OIS outcomes. We have data on that from major LE agencies that have incorporated it. They not only get vastly improved hit ratios, they get incapacitating hits, and they put more armed felons into permanent dirt-nap status. But like sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm, there is a segment of the gun world that can't learn anything more complicated than "any hit is a good hit".
Oh, and speaking of old guys who can shoot with surgical accuracy, have you noticed that Mas Ayoob still regularly shoots IDPA matches, and scores very well?
Originally Posted by lvmiker
As to specifics can you shoot w/ surgical accuracy and discriminate targets from innocents while moving through a crowd in less than optimal light conditions?
I will repeat: If you think you are good enough you are probably wrong.
again YMMV
mike r
Here's where we are gonna part ways.
I understand you train to a pretty hard and high level. More power to you, I'm serious about training, too. I know how quickly my pistol skills degrade if I don't train. Most people have no idea how much speed/accuracy they lose, because they don't use a timer, don't score their hits, etc. So they go to the range and do some pew-pew-pew, admire their targets, and go home thinking that's "good enough".
Now, that won't work for me, because I have standards that I train to maintain. But I think it's foolish for me to expect every Tom, Dick and Harriet out there with a CCW license to train to my personal standards. (Most people aren't able to meet those standards, anyway. It takes years of training to get to that point... just like most people couldn't run a half-marathon, either. It's no insult, they're just not able to.)
But the plain fact is, most people will never, ever get into a gunfight. Most of them won't even use a firearm for defensive purposes their whole life long. So why should I or you or anyone else insist they train to a high standard of performance? Moreover, why should you or I care WHAT standard they train to? It simply doesn't matter to me. I train to please me, and they have every right to do the same.
Folks send me articles and stories about self-defense shootings quite often. American Rifleman has a column about them in every issue. Most of the time, I look at these tales, and I'm no longer surprised by the success some folks have defending their lives when their training and equipment is so bad. But that's life, and they made their call, and they survived.
I guess they thought they were good enough, and it turned out they were right. YMMV.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
So again, I ask you to be specific: what is it that was so flawed about "the old ways", and what is so much better about "the new ways"? Don't just drop names, please give some specifics here.
I don't know about Mike, but I'll offer a few changes that I've observed of the last 18 years. Some of them might sound small, but in practice they're not.
Using "combat effective" as an accuracy standard. "Focus on the front sight" "Jerking the trigger" "Slow down on your trigger press" "Lean into the gun to absorb recoil" "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" 60 / 40 grip pressure
Some of that is still taught, but not by anyone I'll listen to. And more ridiculous stuff than that has been offered up as good advice by respected members of this forum before.
Funny thing, there's a kernel of truth in every one of those (except the slow is fast one... ), but they have been twisted by mindless repetition into nonsense over time.
If I'm not mistaken, the "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast, so slow is fast" mantra came out of the speed training of USPSA Master David Elderton. He never uttered such nonsense, but people who didn't understand what he was teaching thought he said it. When I first met Dave, his speed on the draw was incredible, or so I thought. I've since seen a lot of folks who are faster.
I remember taking Dave's "Speed Skills" class in about 2000 or 2001. He was the first instructor I ever had who taught and broke down every element of the draw, presentation, and trigger press to work on eliminating excess movement; in other words, to make the motions as efficient or "smooth" as possible. He had us work each move of the drawstroke slowly, concentrating on smooth, efficient, motion. Then he gradually sped us up through a series of drills. He actually said you had to go slowly at first to get smooth, then you accelerate your speed while maintaining that smoothness. He never actually said, "Slow is smooth" (he would say, "start slow, for form, then build your speed on that") but a lot of people heard him (or more likely about him) as saying "slow is smooth and smooth is fast".
Anyways, that's an example of how good training and true statements get twisted.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
I have very little interest in this thread, but I do have to ask one question.
Do we no longer want to focus on the front sight?
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
I don't know about Mike, but I'll offer a few changes that I've observed of the last 18 years. Some of them might sound small, but in practice they're not.
Using "combat effective" as an accuracy standard. "Focus on the front sight" "Jerking the trigger" "Slow down on your trigger press" "Lean into the gun to absorb recoil" "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" 60 / 40 grip pressure
Some of that is still taught, but not by anyone I'll listen to. And more ridiculous stuff than that has been offered up as good advice by respected members of this forum before.
Curious (purely academic and not poking holes here) - what's the tipping point on capacity? Take platform out of it as 45ACP is available in 1911 or Glock/Sig etc.
Here’s how I got to where I’m at.
Depending on target size, I can fire accurately 4-5 times per second. And it’s reasonable to assume, based research and anecdotal evidence, that the....Start firing—Threat reacts—Perceive the threat is over—Brain tells me to stop firing—I stop shooting....cycle would take about a second. That’s 4-5 rounds per threat.
So I consider everything in multiples of 5. If it’s a 6 round revolver, that’s one bad guy. I assume there’ll be two bad guys, so a 10 round mag is a minimum for me, and 15 is where I feel comfortable.
That’s not scientific, but it does have more thought in it than “this is probably enough”.
That's a variation on the Gunsite "number of engagements" approach, I think. I learned it from an ex-Gunsite guy named Tim Lau. I don't think they teach it any more, but I think it's a useful concept. The number they used was smaller than yours, 3-4 rounds, per engagement. This results in a normal-capacity revolver being a 1.5-2.0 engagements weapon, a 7-round single-stack being a 1.0-2.0 engagements weapon, a 10-round mag giving you a 2.5-3.0 engagements weapon, and so forth.
The number of rounds you will use in an actual shooting is set by your training, to some degree. There is a lot of research that bears this out, by Force Science Institute among others in the later 90's and early 2000's...people who trained to shoot a double-tap and assess tended to get shot when they lifted their heads to see how well their double-tap had worked. Whereas, people who didn't train much at all, in double-taps or otherwise, tended to empty the gun. People who diligently trained using a "nonstandard response"--since double-taps were "standard" then, anything like an El Prez or a 4-shot group was called "nonstandard"--did better in OIS's than people who fired DT's or who emptied their weapons.
I have been using a 3-round "nonstandard response" as my default in my training for a while now, which is suitable to my preferred blaster, a 1911 with an 8 round magazine.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
The most concerning thing I’ve seen in this thread has been the underestimation of the enemy. Talking about thugs who don’t pull up their pants or whatever.
That’s a caricature of the bad guy. That’s the stooge, the hanger-on, the lackey. That’s not the bad guy.
The bad guy will Jack. You. Up. He’s bigger and faster and stronger and meaner than you and he’s lived harder for longer than you. You can disagree, but it’ll only be because you haven’t met him yet.
True story!
The average law-abiding middle-class person has no experience with or knowledge of the hardness of the Bad Guys. I have some knowledge and experience, and I do everything I reasonably can to limit my exposure to them.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
I have very little interest in this thread, but I do have to ask one question.
Do we no longer want to focus on the front sight?
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
I don't know about Mike, but I'll offer a few changes that I've observed of the last 18 years. Some of them might sound small, but in practice they're not.
Using "combat effective" as an accuracy standard. "Focus on the front sight" "Jerking the trigger" "Slow down on your trigger press" "Lean into the gun to absorb recoil" "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" 60 / 40 grip pressure
Some of that is still taught, but not by anyone I'll listen to. And more ridiculous stuff than that has been offered up as good advice by respected members of this forum before.
In practice, you're going to look at the SOB you need to shoot. But people who have been trained to look for the front sight (i.e. 'Focus' on it) will almost invariably see it, or at least reference it, which results in way above average hit rates and more effective fire. Of course most of this occurred before 9-11 and with pistols other than 9mms, so those fights probably don't count.
Last edited by SargeMO; 05/19/21.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
Curious (purely academic and not poking holes here) - what's the tipping point on capacity? Take platform out of it as 45ACP is available in 1911 or Glock/Sig etc.
Here’s how I got to where I’m at.
Depending on target size, I can fire accurately 4-5 times per second. And it’s reasonable to assume, based research and anecdotal evidence, that the....Start firing—Threat reacts—Perceive the threat is over—Brain tells me to stop firing—I stop shooting....cycle would take about a second. That’s 4-5 rounds per threat.
So I consider everything in multiples of 5. If it’s a 6 round revolver, that’s one bad guy. I assume there’ll be two bad guys, so a 10 round mag is a minimum for me, and 15 is where I feel comfortable.
That’s not scientific, but it does have more thought in it than “this is probably enough”.
Interesting. Thanks. I hadn't thought of it that way. I can see where 10, as a minimum makes sense given that line of thought.
Curious (purely academic and not poking holes here) - what's the tipping point on capacity? Take platform out of it as 45ACP is available in 1911 or Glock/Sig etc.
Here’s how I got to where I’m at.
Depending on target size, I can fire accurately 4-5 times per second. And it’s reasonable to assume, based research and anecdotal evidence, that the....Start firing—Threat reacts—Perceive the threat is over—Brain tells me to stop firing—I stop shooting....cycle would take about a second. That’s 4-5 rounds per threat.
So I consider everything in multiples of 5. If it’s a 6 round revolver, that’s one bad guy. I assume there’ll be two bad guys, so a 10 round mag is a minimum for me, and 15 is where I feel comfortable.
That’s not scientific, but it does have more thought in it than “this is probably enough”.
Most excellent post, sir. I guess I need to revert to my G-31! PS: My "ego" just won't permit me to use a 9mm
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Excellent post, Doc and in a nutshell, this is what I grabbed onto...} I shoot my 1911 better than my Glocks and not for lack of trying."....
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I have very little interest in this thread, but I do have to ask one question.
Do we no longer want to focus on the front sight?
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
I don't know about Mike, but I'll offer a few changes that I've observed of the last 18 years. Some of them might sound small, but in practice they're not.
Using "combat effective" as an accuracy standard. "Focus on the front sight" "Jerking the trigger" "Slow down on your trigger press" "Lean into the gun to absorb recoil" "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" 60 / 40 grip pressure
Some of that is still taught, but not by anyone I'll listen to. And more ridiculous stuff than that has been offered up as good advice by respected members of this forum before.
Staring hard at the front sight is pretty low on my list of priorities. And way, way far down on the list of what I pressure students to do.
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
So here's the sight deviation drill I posted about recently.
This is what it looks like..... The post-it on the target indicates how many yards I was from the target. The cut-out sights indicate what my sight picture looked like at that distance. I fired three rounds at the center of the target with a perfect sight picture, then three rounds left and three rounds right with the sights deviated as indicated by the cut-outs.
These sights are Dawson .125 rear and .100 front. Your gun will be different based on sight width, sight radius and arm length. But the principle will remain the same. If you try to duplicate this with your gun BE SURE you're actually deviating the FRONT sight. The hardest part of this, for me, is keeping the rear sight in line and moving ONLY the front sight. If you shift the sights in any other way you won't accomplish the same thing.
What this drill shows you.... Sight alignment matters far, far less than most people think it does. Even at 25 yards your sight picture doesn't have to be perfect, IF YOUR TRIGGER PRESS IS GOOD. A good trigger press is far, far more important than sight alignment. We generally spend way too much time aligning our sights, have a poor grip to begin with, and then mash the piss out of the trigger when our sights are "just right" (which is made worse by the poor grip we started with). The result is a shot that's too slow and misses, even after we wasted all that time screwing around with the sights. Dread of disaster makes everyone act in the very way that increases the disaster. --Bertrand Russell Shooters get so worried about missing a shot that they do the very things (over-aiming, poor trigger control) that make them miss.
Well Blue I think we are missing the gospel that the old guys had this stuff all figured out and that everything since Cooper and Cirillo is just gilding the Lily.
All that is required is a hard front sight focus, don't let your ego allow you to carry a mouse gun and do your best to limit your exposure to real bad guys.
All that other stuff is not an evolution in learning based on actual experience gained in the last 20 years because evolution is only a biological function. who knew?
No wonder the boomers are no longer taken seriously
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Doc, if you really believe that the physical fitness and educational level of modern humans has declined in the last 60 years we are living in different universes.
As to the modern warriors who are all hat and no cattle, actual experience trumps gun camp theorists every time.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Doc, if you really believe that the physical fitness and educational level of modern humans has declined in the last 60 years we are living in different universes.
As to the modern warriors who are all hat and no cattle, actual experience trumps gun camp theorists every time.
Doc, if you really believe that the physical fitness and educational level of modern humans has declined in the last 60 years we are living in different universes.
As to the modern warriors who are all hat and no cattle, actual experience trumps gun camp theorists every time.
I will just throw out that my experience is that where you hit is VERY important.
"Any hit is a good hit" seems like a good way to not stop the threat.
Granted, I haven't killed "a lot" of people, and I did it with a rifle. That alone makes me think accuracy/shot placement is even more important with a handgun.
The people I know that have killed "a lot" pretty much say torso good, CNS great, but only CNS=stop.
As for amio, just load my patients before cardioversion, and stop it while their lungs still work.....
I don't think anyone in our era kills a lot of people with a handgun. People put into a position in which killing a lot of others with small arms fire is necessary are using rifles. Occasionally a shotgun or handgun is deployed for a specific role but by and large modern warfighters and increasingly even law enforcement are going to the fight with an M4 carbine. And for good reasons.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
"Any hit is a good hit... " Maybe that should be changed to "any hit is a good start!" Watch this two minute video all the way through for the punch line.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Maybe that should be changed to "any hit is a good start!"
That's a good way to word it Mog. Who ever gets lead in the fleshy parts first gains an advantage. If you do get that initial hip shot it can have the added advantage of cancelling your opponents mobility. Hit to the hip or lower spine, they're not moving so fast.it takes the initiative from them and gives you more options.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I will just throw out that my experience is that where you hit is VERY important.
"Any hit is a good hit" seems like a good way to not stop the threat.
Glad to read of your experience, sir. It’s funny how that works. In my view, that’s a ready-made excuse for police chiefs to pull out to excuse the lousy shooting of their cops in an OIS. In one OIS review I was part of, 2 coppers emptied their pistols on a would be suicide-by-cop. That’s 30 rounds of 40 S&W. Hit him 4 times (13.3% hit ratio). Chief deputy says it was a good shoot because all 4 hits were in the guy’s head, but I pointed out that clipping both ears and grazing the scalp apparently didn’t quite work, as they still had to taser him to get him to hold still so they could cuff him.
Originally Posted by goalie
Granted, I haven't killed "a lot" of people, and I did it with a rifle. That alone makes me think accuracy/shot placement is even more important with a handgun.
As for amio, just load my patients before cardioversion, and stop it while their lungs still work.....
Funny how the rifles vs pistols stuff is rarely mentioned in ex Navy SEAL classes.
As for amlodipine, that’s a good approach. I typically just load them and start a drip and let the intensivists figure out the rest.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Well Blue I think we are missing the gospel that the old guys had this stuff all figured out and that everything since Cooper and Cirillo is just gilding the Lily.
Seriously? Did you bother to read what I wrote before you wrote this?
Originally Posted by lvmiker
All that other stuff is not an evolution in learning based on actual experience gained in the last 20 years because evolution is only a biological function. who knew?
Mike, don’t dissimulate. You wrote HUMAN evolution, not evolution of training. There is a huge difference. English is a precise language. Use it accordingly.
And yes, I maintain that people today are far less fit than they were 60 years ago, and there is ample data to prove it. The percentage of Americans who actually exercise daily has declined drastically. Average Body mass index and percentage body fat have increased enormously. There is a small segment of the populace that actively exercises because they want to, but they are in the minority by a large margin. As others have posted, above, the medical and fitness literature supports this sad fact very strongly.
Last edited by DocRocket; 05/20/21.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Maybe that should be changed to "any hit is a good start!"
That's a good way to word it Mog. Who ever gets lead in the fleshy parts first gains an advantage. If you do get that initial hip shot it can have the added advantage of cancelling your opponents mobility. Hit to the hip or lower spine, they're not moving so fast.it takes the initiative from them and gives you more options.
Once engaged, if a bad guy has cover/concealment I'll shoot whatever part of him I can see. If I can't see his head, upper chest and he lets his knee stray too far out - it is gonna get shot. Sticks a thigh out, lets his shoulder poke out, it's getting a bullet. Obviously those aren't necessarily fight stoppers, but I promise it will weigh on his mind and spirit.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Maybe that should be changed to "any hit is a good start!"
That's a good way to word it Mog. Who ever gets lead in the fleshy parts first gains an advantage. If you do get that initial hip shot it can have the added advantage of cancelling your opponents mobility. Hit to the hip or lower spine, they're not moving so fast.it takes the initiative from them and gives you more options.
To clarify, I prefer the term “lateral pelvis” rather than “hip”, and that’s what I’ve been teaching for 20+ years. It works. It’s a relatively large target area, and fracturing the bones there (upper femur and ilium of pelvis) will put a felon on the ground very quickly. Unfortunately, it’s not exactly a non-lethal option, as many people think... the iliac and femoral arteries are right there, and if you perforate those, you can’t apply a tourniquet...
I have been told by several cops I’ve trained that they used lateral pelvis shots in OIS with excellent effect.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
MOGC, all due respect, but potentially wasting bullets on small and mobile target areas may work against you if not carefully thought out. I’m sure you e already considered this, it let me be a bit more explicit.
If you’re shooting a rifle, and you have lots of ammo, yeah, go ahead and shoot at the guy’s exposed appendage, But if all you have is a 17 round mag for your blaster and the range is 20 yards, and you waste 7 or 10 rounds trying to hit the edge of his head when he ducks out, you may put yourself at a serious tactical disadvantage. By all means, if you have a non-moving appendage in your sights and your marksmanship is up to snuff for the target size and the range, take a shot! But be careful you don’t send good bullets after bad. There are lots of examples in the LE literature of cops doing just that and shooting their guns empty.
I (and trainers such as Pat Rogers), consider such shooting a low percentage option. You are more likely to miss than on a torso or full head target, and even if you do hit, you’re not likely to incapacitate your opponent. The subject is in a fixed position behind cover, which means you have opportunity for fire and maneuver, or simply wait him out, or other options, depending on the situation.
Again, not arguing with you, just trying to out some nuance on it.
Caveat: if you use this tactic as a component of a suppressive fire while you or a member of the team closes on the subject, it may work very well indeed.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
With a combat load of 240 rounds (8 magazines) suppressive fire seemed wasteful, even if appropriate.
Low percentage shots with a handgun when I'm usually carrying total, with reload, roughly what I had in the M16 before the first reload (or a few rounds less) is only an option if it's allowing me to un-ass the encounter.
Then again, I value my ability to run more than my ability to shoot well.
Obviously, you want both fitness and firearms proficiency, but one is likely to never be used, while one almost ensures a longer, healthier life.
And, in SOI, I learned that there's a LOT of running involved in training to fight.
IMO, carrying a gun 24-7 just in case, but neglecting physical fitness makes zero sense
goalie, I did a fair bit of suppressive fire training, but never used it on SWAT ops, never used it and never saw it used, but we trained for it and if the right situation ever came up, we could have used it. Pat Rogers ran us thru a drill using SF on some emergency egress situations he had based on real world ops. But as you say, the purpose was to un -ass a stack of guys from a bad place.
I have steel knees and I don’t like to run, but I CAN run if I have to. Otherwise I’d still be running 15 miles a week. Now I walk and throw dumbbells around. And go to my happy place (the range) a lot.
Last edited by DocRocket; 05/20/21.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
[ English is a precise language. Use it accordingly.
.
Good luck in this place....
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Doc, I realized I was old the other day when my GPS watch had 18 minutes and change at mile 2, and I realized I used to run 3 miles in less time than it takes me to run 2 miles now. And that's at my "fast" old guy pace.
Doc, if you really believe that the physical fitness and educational level of modern humans has declined in the last 60 years we are living in different universes.
As to the modern warriors who are all hat and no cattle, actual experience trumps gun camp theorists every time.
People Getting Dumber? Human Intelligence Has Declined Since Victorian Era, Research Suggests
You just referenced the Huffington Post. Since the Victorian era men have split the atom, walked on the moon and invented the Glock in 9mm. Get a grip.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Doc, it is obvious that your training has resulted in opinions that wont be changed regardless of advances that others choose to heed. I had no idea of the depth of your experience as a swat cop and entry team member. Those SOF guys that I mentioned should have have sought out your level of expertise.
You are now the official Guru of Gunfighting and have achieved the Big Stick level of Subject Matter Expert.
I stand humbled in your presence.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Doc, if you really believe that the physical fitness and educational level of modern humans has declined in the last 60 years we are living in different universes.
As to the modern warriors who are all hat and no cattle, actual experience trumps gun camp theorists every time.
People Getting Dumber? Human Intelligence Has Declined Since Victorian Era, Research Suggests
You just referenced the Huffington Post. Since the Victorian era men have split the atom, walked on the moon and invented the Glock in 9mm. Get a grip.
mike r
If you like I can show it written by others but the fact is as a whole we've lost 14 IQ points since the Victorian Era
You should get a grip
Here you go.
Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time
Glad to hear you’ve come to your senses, Mike. Im still waiting to hear what advances you espouse that I haven’t heeded, though.
It is obvious that you are functioning on a higher plane than any of today's trainers and that further advancement of your martial experience and skills is neither required or desired. With that I will yield the field and remain your humble acolyte.
#areallboomersretards?
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Maybe that should be changed to "any hit is a good start!"
That's a good way to word it Mog. Who ever gets lead in the fleshy parts first gains an advantage. If you do get that initial hip shot it can have the added advantage of cancelling your opponents mobility. Hit to the hip or lower spine, they're not moving so fast.it takes the initiative from them and gives you more options.
To clarify, I prefer the term “lateral pelvis” rather than “hip”, and that’s what I’ve been teaching for 20+ years. It works. It’s a relatively large target area, and fracturing the bones there (upper femur and ilium of pelvis) will put a felon on the ground very quickly. Unfortunately, it’s not exactly a non-lethal option, as many people think... the iliac and femoral arteries are right there, and if you perforate those, you can’t apply a tourniquet...
I have been told by several cops I’ve trained that they used lateral pelvis shots in OIS with excellent effect.
Doc, Thanks for the technical clarification and tip on the iliac arteries. That's a great reminder regarding the biological complexity of that region:
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Example: a really good copper I know personally was a member of the firearms training unit at a major metro department that adopted “my” training in the early 2000’s. I say “my” training, but everything in my school was based on readily available data, so I don’t claim Demigod status here...
Anyways, this cop had a run-in with a car thief and the kid turned on him with a knife. He says the thought that popped into his head was “Waitaminit, Doc showed me that I do not have to kill this kid,”, so he shot the kid in the lateral pelvis. His double tap shattered the kid’s hip joint and all those vessels. The kid almost died anyway, but lived. He lost his leg, though. Doing crime in a wheelchair is hard, kid hasn’t offended since.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Jorgei, They make 15 round steel mags for the G48.
My neighbor has them. According to him, they work fine but they are made of metal and from his research you have to change the plastic mag release button to a metal one.
jorge, that is true. We were just having that discussion at the LGS this afternoon. One of the guys is a die-hard G48 fan and claims to have put 7,000 rounds through 8 of those Shield Arms magazines in his G48 without a hiccup. He was explaining it all to another guy that wasn't aware of those magazines for his G48. Iirc, Shield Arms also makes the steel mag release.
PS- Recommendation was to buy direct from Shield Arms. Wait the one month, two months, whatever, instead of getting ripped off by a distributor.
Last edited by local_dirt; 05/21/21. Reason: Should have mentioned mfgr Shield Arms
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Ain't it amazing. What is more of a shocker is how many folks still believe that they can predict the future. Modern trainers don't quote statistics and tell you what will "probably" occur. They demonstrate a path that allows those that will put in the effort to maximize their potential and therefore be more prepared for any event. Mindset is a topic that the pros have taught since I was a child and is still the foundation for clear thought and focused training.
), but they have been twisted by mindless repetition into nonsense over time. 
![[Linked Image from 64.media.tumblr.com]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/472cd9aa0cd8920cf91a2753ee9f291c/tumblr_oxtkfeJcoM1tdigezo1_1280.png)
![[Linked Image from u.cubeupload.com]](https://u.cubeupload.com/Weldedwondersmn/Screenshot2021052109.png)
