My apologies. That wasn't directed at you. I've disagreed with Grant on more than one occasion. I should have been more specific.Originally Posted by Tamara
I was just providing the link. I'm withholding editorial commentary for the nonce.
My apologies. That wasn't directed at you. I've disagreed with Grant on more than one occasion. I should have been more specific.I was just providing the link. I'm withholding editorial commentary for the nonce.
I think the grab/leverage potential is far different for a suppressed pistol than a long gun.
If someone grabs the barrel of a long gun, they don't render it inoperable: they just gain some control of its orientation. You can still fire the long gun while it's being grabbed. Also, if you're able to break contact, the long gun is still fully operational.
(Yes, some shotguns will be more vulnerable than others to having their action manipulated in some unintended way. Something like an AR, however, isn't going to mechanically suffer from someone grabbing the barrel.)
If someone grabs the suppressor on your pistol, they can immediately move it out of battery. This doesn't require any knowledge of firearms: just the natural grabbing and twisting of the exposed 'handle' is likely enough to temporarily prevent the pistol from being fired. If the pistol is fired while the can is being held, it will most likely malfunction. But whether or not you fire, if you're able to break contact, there's a higher chance (compared to the long gun) that the pistol is now in a state of malfunction.
None of this is offering my opinion on the overall decision to choose one over the other. Rather, I just see a big difference in the grab/leverage issue between the two choices that I think is worth considering.
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
One of my things is weapon retention training, something I have been involved with for decades.
The easiest guns to disarm other people of are long barreled handguns. Fact.
The longer the barrel and attachments are the more leverage the enemy has on the pistol shooter. I've seen this in classes with Glock 17/19 vs. 2" revolver.
On service sized handguns, from actually working the problem, I note that many of the lights make it tougher to grab the gun due to spreading the grip out.
What's easier to hold on to, a baseball bat at the grip end or the business end?
Snub revolvers are the toughest guns to take away, especially if they have a three finger grip on them instead of the boot type grips.
Anyway, back on subject, long guns allow the holder to keep both hand on the gun and give quite a bit of leverage if one has the training to us it.
Chuck, I appreciate your input and the fact that it's one of "your things." I don't mean to devalue it at all. However, I do think the suppressor offers some advantages. I suppose a person has to weigh their options in terms of likelihood and importance as to whether suppressing the sound of the shot and decreasing the recoil is a worthwhile tradeoff for offering an attacker a greater leverage point in disarming you.
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
I'll throw out the thought that a person needing to worry about recoil control on a 9mm handgun is likely a person needing to think more about handgun retention than perhaps someone with greater physical capabilities.
........
Last edited by 1slow; 10-22-2014 at 10:20 AM.
My post was redundant.
With .17 splits, it's about a 3177 RPM .32 SMG on 9 round burst, just to be exact.
And that's a really neat way of thinking about it. Hoping that Rhino AR-10 shotgun turns out better/more reliable than the (horribly clunky) MKA1919/TAC-12A1 or the (fall apart) Saiga 12. That's a phrasing I can get behind.
Reply With Quote