went shooting with..

[deSelys]

Bravo Gman.

This why I don't like DA/SA pistols (exception being the CZ 75 as it can be carried chambered, cocked and locked), it requires a lot of extra training to break in the pull force difference between 1st and 2nd shot.
I don't like DAO neither at it trades off a lot of accuracy.

I think that, for police forces, systems like the Glock are the best as they reduce the amount of necessary training for a safe gun handling. Even if some guns are cheaper/more durable, the costs of extra training could easily be higher and can't be overlooked.

About the 1911, isn't it dangerous to carry it chambered with hammer down? Is the link between hammer and firing pin interrupted or can a blow on the hammer cause an accidental dsicharge?

[GRUNHERZ]

CZ 75 is a nice gun. My USP is also an sa/da that can be carried cocked and locked.

[Eden]

Originally posted by Gman

Well it's my opinion that if you are serious about ever using your weapons to defend yourself or others, get some serious training someplace, because both of the above practices are bunk, either on the range, or in combat.

I agree... bottom line is don't use a handgun to fight a war.  A handgun is what you use to fight your way to a rife.  Home defense is another issue all together.  The M-9 Beretta de-***** the hammer (And rotates the firing pin) when the safety is applied so the hammer would be forward and the safety on when stored at home.  The trigger pull on the M-9 is heavy in DA and don't forget range shooting (for the military) is mostly about the score.  There are more realistic reaction courses and gunfighting schools then that (the Army has some great ones) and those are the ones that really pay off.  Bottom line is in a Battle...have a rifle esppecially when all you have is 9mm Ball ammo.  There are some who argue the perks of Handguns but in a war I'll disagree (now at home I have the 44magnum for defense...diferent scenario).

[Eden]

I had some more time to think about this on the way to work this morning.
Seems like two issues are discussed:


1) Training: Fundementally training should be driven by one philosophy "train as you fight".  Simple enough it seems (and the first paragraph in any training manual>  Training, however, is driven by

[Eden]

(Hate it when I accidentally send the post before finishing it)

I had some more time to think about this on the way to work this morning.
Seems like two issues are discussed:


1) Training:
   Fundementally training should be driven by one philosophy "train as you fight". Simple enough it seems (and the first paragraph in any training manual). Training, however, is driven by:
    a) Resouces (who is available to do the training, what ranges/training site are available, what do we have for ammo, pyro etc...basically anything that costs money)
    b) Time: both time that is available for planning along with time for execution.
    c) Mission:  What task/scenario do we want to train (driven by our "real world" mission or "what we expect to be doing worst case).  Not everything can be trained all at once. (Also governed by the idea of crawl-walk-run)
    d) Level of trainees:  Drives where the training needs to start and where it needs to go.
  Once all these things are mixed into the pot the training event can be planned and executed.  Therefore, not every training event is super high speed (like some of the gun fighting classes I've been to).  Basic Pistol Markmanship falls into that category.  It is a game where all that matters is passing (I am assuming that pistol scores in the Civilian (I.E. police) also count in the scheme of career progression).  A smart person would take every advantage to win (and also try and get something out of all training events) and would pull the hammer back on the first round.  Which leads to the second discussion

2) Weapon Readiness Status:
    a) Controlled primarily by the Rules of Engagement (or the scenario at hand).  Blanket policies regarding the status of your weapon exist and are established by those in charge to balance the prepraredness of execution with the management of safety.  The hard, fast rule is "be just as safe as you need to be" when it comes to weapon safety in a combat zone.  It is a meaningless as it is obscure.  Bottom line is to know your weapon and maintain a serious awareness of your environment.  I've had to draw and fire my 9mm on several occasions (in Iraq) and they were all different.

   Case 1: Close range, immediate action.  Drew the weapon from the holster and fired one round quickly at a range of about 50 ft (followed by the rest of the magazine shortly after).  Double action trigger pull.

   Case 2: (luckily there was a case 2).  Had more time to draw and pull the hammer back.  Distance was about 1/4 mile (yup thats right...long story).  (By the way, after this I "found" myself a rifle) .

 Point is that weapon control is a complicated matter driven by Rules of egnagement (can you have the weapon loaded?... is it on safe? ... can I pull the hammer back?)  Training prepares you for immediate action (if required) but knowledge of all features on your weapon will matter.  When kicking in doors in Fallujah with a 9mm (not likely) the hammer would be back.  Same scenario but in Camden, NJ the hammer is forward.

[lazs2]

gman and eden...you guys are making far too much of it... it matters not in a real life situation if I can get off a shot from concealment or in my hand in .004 or 4 seconds or whatever if I don't have the will or the ability to hit what I am aiming at..

In about every real life shooting situation that I have ever heard about there has been no advantage to shaving a couple of tenths of a second off your draw and fire time.... MANY situations ended up with people spraying 1 or two reloads at each other over long periods of time at close range and not hitting a thing.  

To say that the "training" you get at some gunfight school is gonna be the answer is as wrong as saying that shooting at the range is.   It is will and determination and familiarity with the firearm that get's the job done.

In most real life scenarios it isn't even the type of weapon but the ability to hit with it that determines the outcome...  If all that mattered was short range accuracy and a few hundreths of a sec from the holster to the fall of the hammer..... we would all be carrying 1873 peacmakers.

I don't know how a person can be trained to ignore the fear and to aquire the front sight and stand his ground and fire at any range at a moving target...   but that is what it takes.

I will admit that some of the training will help a person act in an instinctive manner rather than a panic mode...

Still... the reason a lot of bad guys win is because they have the will and don't panic.   Like gunfighters of old... they take their time in a hurry.

To summarize...  In the time it takes to tulips the threat.... you have all the time in the world... people tulips threat at different speeds....  while watching a guy go through a course with a semi auto or revolver and double tap multiple cardboard men or plates in fractions of a second is impressive... it represents only a very small portion of the fight.

If you are a good shot and don't panic and know your weapon and shoot a lot out at everything from running jacks at indeterminate distances and plinking... and you have the will and the ability to tulips threat a second or two faster than the average guy...  you will do better than any person who spends 10k at a "self defense ranch" or competes in some sort of cardboard bad guy match.

I may be wrong about this but my limitied experiance around guns and people who lived with em on the wrong side of the law tells me this.

Oh...and grun... if you guys like the CZ 75 so much... How come you guys didn't care to take the withness .45 with us?

lazs

[Eden]

100% agree.  Individual Weapon Training is fundemental for instinctive behavior to both get your shot off accurately and ensuring that you don't shoot the wrong thing.  Bottom line is to know the weapon so well that you don't get boggled with working it when the "panic" arises.  Training cannot prepare you for the actuality of what is faced but it can give you the confidence which could give you an edge (a whole lot of "ifs" involved for sure).  

Military traing is both individual and collective.  Individual training involves personal skills (weapon or otherwise) while collective involves figting as a team.  Both are critical to winning the war.  My point was that it is not just how fast you can draw and shoot the weapon but rather a combination of that along with assessing the situation, knowing your allies, knowing your weapon(s), having confidence in your skills and the skills of those around you, and finally quite a bit of luck.

Bottom line to winning a gun fight is:  Don't get shot critically (even a little shot is OK) before you (or someone on your side) can eliminate the threat.  

(Oh, and if anyone wants to spend $10K on weapons/gunfighting.... I can surely accomidate...Step one: Pointy end of weapon to the bad guy(that one is free - the rest will cost ya!))

[Seagoon]

Reading through this thread, I'm wondering if you guys wouldn't mind introducing the phrase "Greentards" to distinguish us permanent resident alien types from the normal Eurabians.

At least until I get this change of nationality business worked out....



- SEAGOON

[Curval]

Don't worry Seagoon...your assimilation is almost complete.

[lazs2]

eden we probly agree more than not... I just feel that getting the gun drawn quickly is probly the least important part of a gunfight on the street in a civilian situation.. I am not a military man and don't know much about team tactics.

I also agree about getting shot "a little bit"  it seems a lot of people function well enough for a while after being shot..  I have seen 3 people shot and all of em functioned quite well long enough to kill you if they needed to..  None were fatal.  

lazs

[Eden]

Originally posted by lazs2
eden we probly agree more than not... I just feel that getting the gun drawn quickly is probly the least important part of a gunfight on the street in a civilian situation.. I am not a military man and don't know much about team tactics.

lazs

Most likely if needed in a military environment the gun will already be drawn.  Having to draw quickly is more of a police issue .  Americans have this thing against seeing people armed.  Can't let the police appear to be armed even if it gets them killed so they have to hide the weapon and be able to draw super fast.  Crazy, stupid anti-gun SOBs.  If I had my way the Uniformed Police could carry MP-5s (or similar).  Reliable weapons with better accuracy then most handguns (if an officer has to shoot a bad guy who is standing near me I hope he has the most accurate weapon in the world).

[Seagoon]

Hi Eden,

Originally posted by Eden
Most likely if needed in a military environment the gun will already be drawn.  Having to draw quickly is more of a police issue .  Americans have this thing against seeing people armed.  Can't let the police appear to be armed even if it gets them killed so they have to hide the weapon and be able to draw super fast.  Crazy, stupid anti-gun SOBs.  If I had my way the Uniformed Police could carry MP-5s (or similar).  Reliable weapons with better accuracy then most handguns (if an officer has to shoot a bad guy who is standing near me I hope he has the most accurate weapon in the world).

PC anti-gunniness is indeed part of the explanation for why Americans don't like having obviously heavily armed police officers in plain sight, but there's more to it than that.

 Historically, the British people were opposed to having a large standing army and their American descendents inherited that trait. They rightly viewed large bodies of heavily armed men who took their orders from the present political administration as counter-productive to the aims and ideals of a representative democracy - and with good reason. Historically, those standing armies had been used more often to suppress political and religious dissent within Britain, than to fight the enemies of the state.

Perhaps the most eggregious examples of this trend were provided roughly 100 years prior to the American revolution when Cromwell used his position as the head of the New Model Army to forcibly eject all the members of parliament who did not agree with his religious and political aims, and to ensure that only his cronies (the "rump" parliament) remained. Later when even they proved unruly, he essentially ruled directly in a way that not even the Jus Divinum tyrant Charles I whom he had replaced had tried to do. Later Charles II used his restored power to eject over 2000 ministers who refused to sign the act of uniformity and then to militarily suppress Scottish religious dissenters.

These lessons were learned and remembered by the Scots/Irish/English colonists who came to America, and they had a natural aversion to funding and maintaining well armed security forces who might just as easily be turned   against them - this was one of the reasons the American military developed relatively slowly and was consistently underfunded and why America followed a "no big army in peacetime" policy for many years.

As a result of our history, we still see well-armed "peace officers" as a potential threat to our liberties, and given the choice between accepting increased risk or potentially losing our freedoms, we have generally taken the "I'll take the chance and defend myself, thank you" approach. That is obviously gradually changing, but there it is.

[Dowding]

Seagoon, historically British people disliked a professional army for the simple pragmatic reason that the individual soldiers were the 'scum of the earth' - as Wellington pointed out. I really doubt the individual citizen cared that much about politics, especially since merely surviving from one month to the next could often be so perilous.

The British Empire was a rehabilitation program for anti-social types.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by lazs2


Oh...and grun... if you guys like the CZ 75 so much... How come you guys didn't care to take the withness .45 with us?

lazs

Cuz I only shot one a few days after our visit.

[Seagoon]

Hello Dowding,

Originally posted by Dowding
Seagoon, historically British people disliked a professional army for the simple pragmatic reason that the individual soldiers were the 'scum of the earth' - as Wellington pointed out. I really doubt the individual citizen cared that much about politics, especially since merely surviving from one month to the next could often be so perilous.

The British Empire was a rehabilitation program for anti-social types.

While they were indeed made up of the dregs of the social order, you'll find that opposition to standing armies on account of their potential to usurp power and create tyranny was widespread in England throughout the late 17th and early 18th century, particularly amongst the whigs whose political philosophy became the driving force behind the American rebellion.

One series of essays in particular written by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon and published in various London Journals had a dramatic effect on both the British and American political scene. These were the famous "Cato's Letters" which were reprinted by Ben Franklin and other colonial presses and were present in over 30% of American libraries of any size. Several historians have described them as having a more profound influence on American political thought in the 18th century than any other treatise, and that includes the works of the French Philosophes.

Trenchard's prior essays against standing armies had included, An Argument Shewing that a Standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy and he is undoubtedly the author of letters 94 and 95 which are devoted to this subject. One section in particular was frequently quoted by colonials, here is an excerpt:

Standing armies are standing curses in every country under the sun, where they are more powerful than the people.

It is certain, that all parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is absolutely impossible, that any nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties; nor can any nation perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests: And yet, though all men see this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined in their turns, to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and their country.

I never yet met with one honest and reasonable man out of power who was not heartily against all standing armies, as threatening and pernicious, and the ready instruments of certain ruin: And I scarce ever met with a man in power, or even the meanest creature of power, who was not for defending and keeping them up: So much are the opinions of men guided by their circumstances! Men, when they are angry with one another, will come into any measures for revenge, without considering that the same power which destroys an enemy, may destroy themselves; and he to whom I lend my sword to kill my foe, may with it kill me.

Great empires cannot subsist without great armies, and liberty cannot subsist with them. As armies long kept up, and grown part of the government, will soon engross the whole government, and can never be disbanded; so liberty long lost, can never be recovered. Is not this an awful lesson to free states, to be vigilant against a dreadful condition, which has no remedy.

The above sentiment carried on well into the 19th century, and was a major factor in the feeling that America was better served by having a "well regulated militia" made up of citizen soldiers who could take up arms to defend the nation in times of crisis.  

- SEAGOON