Author Topic: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns  (Read 3157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drdougrx

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2011, 04:29:16 AM »
I find myself migrating back to 9mm and 125gr +P because of the thin profiles, higher capacity and the much better ammunition. 
If you like, please enjoy some of my hunt pics at:

http://public.fotki.com/DrDougRx

If you leave a comment, please leave your GB screen name so that I can reply back!

Offline John R.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2011, 06:24:04 AM »
I like the 357 mag , stats is stats .
 
It is best to always rack the slide on an auto . Why ? Because if the gun jams its the first thing to do , if you reload it also works , if you are loading it works and you do it to clear and check. In other words just about everything you need to load and keep running can start with racking the slide . If you do it this way you will never stop to think what needs to be done. And every so often the lever jams or breaks .
So are you saying you should carry a semi-auto chamber empty, then draw and rack the slide, if so you have a much different opinion than most folks. There is no need to have to rack the slide on the draw. If you don't feel comfortable carrying an automatis then I would stick with revolvers (although surely you carry them loaded).

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2011, 06:41:17 AM »
Sorry if I was not clear or maybe I miss understand you ? .
What I am saying is to always rack the slide and not use the slide release. I say this because it is faster, gives a bit more travel/power to the slide and is the action needed if a jam occures . The idea is to do things as much as possible the same all the time. So in a fire fight your gun jams or you put in a fresh mag on a closed slide or open slide you use the same motor skill to get back in the fight. If you always rack the slide you will do so now with out thinking.
If you were thinking that I advocate loading the chamber only in the presence of danger the ansewer is no . Only a loaded gun is useful when your life is on the line.
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Mike in Virginia

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2011, 03:08:55 PM »
Someone mentioned a "triple tap."  Is that what they teach now?  I've been gone since 2002, so I don't know.  I was always trained in double tap.  I do remember some drills required two in the torso and one in the head, but those sessions were always at 7 yards.  At distances beyond that, it was 2 at a time.  That carried over from revolver days.  Two rounds, holster, two more rounds, holster, two more rounds.  At 25 yards, we did 12 and 18 round drills, the last six rounds being from the weak hand.  I never could master that left handed shooting. 
 
In the very early days, the 70's, we shot our 4" .38's at 50 yards from the prone position.  We cocked the revolvers and fired single action.  How times have changed.  Then, in the latter years of police revolvers, cocking the gun was strictly prohibited and the 50 yard line was eliminated.  I suppose that was based on statistics that indicated long range revolver shooting was not a reality on the highway. 
 
Since I've retired, my dept. issues 3 weapons to each trooper/agent.  A Sig Sauer .357 with no decocker, a riot shotgun which is a short barreled model 870, and a .223 auto rifle.  I wouldn't fit in if I had to go back. 
 
I remember that hateful 870.  Everyone dreaded range day because of that beast.  We fired slugs at a metal man 50 yards away.  The recoil of 25 slugs in one session always left my shoulder badly bruised.  I use to stuff a shirt, or the canvas shotgun case under my jacket to absorb some of the recoil, but still, it was a painful experience.  Toward the end of the shotgun drill, flinching became almost unavoidable.  But if the instructor didn't hear the metal man ring with a hit, you had to do it over again.  I hated that metal man so bad. 
 
Once a year, in addition to regular training, we had to drive a police car in a hurry to a desginated spot and roll out with both pistol and shotgun.  That same metal man awaited us.  We fired at him with the Sig, reloading once, emptying two magazines, then went to the dreaded shotgun, and fired 5 more times.  All of that was timed.  I can't remember the seconds we had to complete that course, but it was frantic from the car's starting line to the last shotgun round. 
 
The first few times I did that crazyness, I was concious of the other officers watching me.  It was embarrassing to screw up, but after a few times, I forgot about everything but putting the rounds on target, because I sure as heck did not want to have to repeat it.  Shooting at the range is fun, unless you're being timed and scored.  Simple things like where you stopped the car, putting it in park and setting the brake, exiting without fumbling for the shotgun, were all items to be considered.  Pressure, pressure, pressure, but I reckon that's what makes a cop react correctly when the real thing comes up.  Thankfully, I never fired my gun at anybody over 32 years of service.  However, if I had, I would have been ready. 
 
Most of us can't have that kind of training, but what we can do is go to the range and shoot and shoot.  We can practice drawing and firing time and time again.  It's dumb not to do that.  Just get out and go.  Spend the money for the ammo or the reloading and go.  Every minute we spend practicing to put each bullet where it needs to go is worth more than the cost. 
 
When the Bush administration passed the c/c national permit to retired policemen, it meant that I get to go qualify at my dept.'s range each October.  They take it easy on retirees, eliminating the clock and the kneeling position, but still, I practice on my own.  Do you?  Do you take a day more than once a year to spend at the range or wherever you shoot, to build the confidence that you need?  Are  you practiced sufficiently that you definitely will not fumble when you need to draw and fire?
 
I can hardly imagine that the need will come up in the years I have left.  If i didn't have to shoot during my entire career, it's highly unlikely that I ever will.  But, the possibility is there, for me, and for you.  Go tomorrow or this weekend and shoot.  Be your own judge about your speed and ability.  You might discover that you need more practice.             

Offline John R.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2011, 02:35:00 AM »
Sorry shootall, I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't disagree with that.

Offline WD45

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2011, 03:34:05 AM »
I believe the reason for the double tap originaly was due to the poor put down factor of the 9 after the switch from 45's and 357's. In those days there were few options for self defense ammo unless you were rolling your own. We have much better choices now in all calibers. I know some people like the nine due to the higher capacity but if ya have to shoot 2 to equal 1 of another then it defeats the purpose in my mind. thats assuming both shots connect with the target. I am not saying that I would not carry a 9 or that higher capacity is not a good thing. BG's rarely travel alone

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2011, 04:13:06 AM »
I once read an article where a Maryland State Trooper double tapped 3 out of four bad guys in a car . He was using a 357 mag revolver. The 4th bad guy shot him. Not long after they went to High cap autos .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline WD45

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Low tech, non-scientific test of c/c guns
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2011, 06:17:50 AM »
Like I said BG's rarley travel alone. Its the idea of sending someone out on the street and telling them something like " I know it's not a 357 so just shoot em twice " Does'nt instill a lot of confidence in your weapon does it. I've been reading a good bit about real life shootings and come away with the understanding that in a lot of cases where a LEO lost his life a higher cap weapon OR a BUG may have saved his life. In one case the LEO had one arm put out of commision and was trying to do a one handed reload on a semi auto and had no BUG...
Well, I think I got off the path of the intention of the orig post.