The 642 did have a CT laser grip and loaded with Gold Dot short barrel rounds, so I do feel cool. My key chain has a Photon light on it! My car has a 155 mm towed behind it (not really).
The 642 did have a CT laser grip and loaded with Gold Dot short barrel rounds, so I do feel cool. My key chain has a Photon light on it! My car has a 155 mm towed behind it (not really).
Next, somebody will boast about doing The Walk at WalMart...
.
Speaking only for myself, I've got years of quality training and a bajillion rounds through a Glock and STILL can't shoot it as well as a Sig or 1911. Not for want of trying. I love the idea of Glock, the magazine interchange with the BUG, the simplicity, the ease of maintenance, etc. I tried.Originally Posted by Sir Guy
You can paint any number of hypotheticals that support one side or the other. The trick is knowing how to weight the various factors. If I'm riding a motorcycle and I can only choose a helmet or a life vest, which should I choose? What if I ride into a pond? Obviously that's the less likely scenario than hitting the pavement so if it becomes an either/or, I'm picking helmet. In the same way, in most civilian shootings you start behind the 8 ball as the aggressor has already made up their mind to start a confrontation while you are still comparison shopping corn dogs. Accuracy at speed matters a lot more often than capacity.
Since this thread has started we've had 2 self defense shootings in my city. The first was a domestic type situation and a female defended herself with one shot from a .380, killing the aggressor. The second was a person defending himself from a mental/emotional disturbed family member who broke into his house and was trying to arm himself. It was a series of two engagements. The first engagement was upstairs with 3 shots, the second engagement was in the basement with 2 shots.
That 5 shot count is the highest so far in nearly a year. We did have someone engage a store robber and shoot around 13 rounds about a year ago. Video shows the fight was won with the first round, (shot disabled bad guy's pistol and then struck him in the abdomen) and decisively over shortly thereafter, but the speed at which he was firing along with obscured view due to shelves of merchandise he ducked behind etc the defender didn't realize it yet.
Recent self defense shootings (not counting the two I talked about first) Unless otherwise stated, good guy had no injuries.
1 shot (.45) - killed robber
4 shots (.357) - injured one robber and one shopkeeper was also injured (shot while drawing a firearm), both suspects and later apprehended
3 shots (.38) - all misses, attempted carjacking suspect fled
3 shots (.38) - all misses, store robbery suspect was already fleeing before shots were fired
2 shots (9mm) - all misses, street robbery attempt, suspect fled
Those are the winners. We have, unfortunately, had a few losers as well. Not a one died with an empty gun. Pay real close attention to #2. Both shopkeepers would have been dead if the suspects wanted to be murderers. Shopkeeper #1 pulls a revolver, bad guy #1 drops shopkeeper, both bad guys start to flee, shopkeeper #2 picks up dropped gun and shoots. Speed matters and it matters more often than capacity beyond 5-6 shots.
No argument here! You make some very strong points. Like many here, I'm a firearms instructor for my agency, which means I'm a student first and foremost and consider humility one of my continuous goals. These kinds of discussion are quite illustrative because it can make some question their initially-unquestioned beliefs (which I think can be a good thing).
From reports I've read and my own experience, most gunfights are fast and close; no disagreement there, so I'd like to clarify the intent of my post. For the vast majority of shooters, those not in the top 5%, I'd recommend more practice with the 17-round gun to close the gap with the performance of the 10-round gun.
All things being equal, most would want 17. Of course, higher capacity means more weight, a different grip and balance, and other such compromises.
If someone said, "Which car should I get? The Honda Civic four banger or the Porsche? I drive the Porsche better but its mileage and cost of maintenance is worse." An ineloquent analogy perhaps, but if that person were an average driver, we'd suggest the Honda, and more practice with it. If that person were an exceptionally good driver, the trade offs might be worth stronger consideration.
I can shoot almost any modern service handgun fairly well on a square range, which means little. Under stress and speed, I definitely prefer one that fits my hand best and that I can manage well without thinking.
I think a point I'm trying to make is to consider whether the difference in performance is so vast that it's worth a seven-round difference? It's a rare thing these days for us to see someone with, say, a 686 because they shoot it better than an autoloader. The general encouragement is to make some adjustments and pursue additional practice to improve with the newer gun.
For most I think the trade off would be something worth considerable thought. For serious students who can eke out that last percentage of skill with a different gun, it may be worth it.
I shoot a P226 fairly well compared to a Glock 17, but for me I wouldn't download a P226 mag to 10 rounds and leave the Glock in the locker. I think if one were to do so, I'd hope this person would have had the opportunity to do some quality, objective testing (timed and scored) to really appreciate the difference before making the compromise.
I like your motorcycle analogy; if you don't mind, I intend to steal it and use it in context at the next qualification I'm doing!
I read recently a mantra I liked: foresight, eyesight, front sight!
Good stuff.
If you knew you were going to be in a fight for your life tomorrow, what would you change today?
I'm all about software first. If you don't have the fundamentals down, no amount of chasing a hardware solution is going to work.No argument here! You make some very strong points. Like many here, I'm a firearms instructor for my agency, which means I'm a student first and foremost and consider humility one of my continuous goals. These kinds of discussion are quite illustrative because it can make some question their initially-unquestioned beliefs (which I think can be a good thing).
From reports I've read and my own experience, most gunfights are fast and close; no disagreement there, so I'd like to clarify the intent of my post. For the vast majority of shooters, those not in the top 5%, I'd recommend more practice with the 17-round gun to close the gap with the performance of the 10-round gun.
All things being equal, most would want 17. Of course, higher capacity means more weight, a different grip and balance, and other such compromises.
If someone said, "Which car should I get? The Honda Civic four banger or the Porsche? I drive the Porsche better but its mileage and cost of maintenance is worse." An ineloquent analogy perhaps, but if that person were an average driver, we'd suggest the Honda, and more practice with it. If that person were an exceptionally good driver, the trade offs might be worth stronger consideration.
I can shoot almost any modern service handgun fairly well on a square range, which means little. Under stress and speed, I definitely prefer one that fits my hand best and that I can manage well without thinking.
I think a point I'm trying to make is to consider whether the difference in performance is so vast that it's worth a seven-round difference? It's a rare thing these days for us to see someone with, say, a 686 because they shoot it better than an autoloader. The general encouragement is to make some adjustments and pursue additional practice to improve with the newer gun.
For most I think the trade off would be something worth considerable thought. For serious students who can eke out that last percentage of skill with a different gun, it may be worth it.
I shoot a P226 fairly well compared to a Glock 17, but for me I wouldn't download a P226 mag to 10 rounds and leave the Glock in the locker. I think if one were to do so, I'd hope this person would have had the opportunity to do some quality, objective testing (timed and scored) to really appreciate the difference before making the compromise.
I like your motorcycle analogy; if you don't mind, I intend to steal it and use it in context at the next qualification I'm doing!
I read recently a mantra I liked: foresight, eyesight, front sight!
Good stuff.
I admit, that's some serious lingo badassery there. Only thing that could make it badder was if you were in the employ of a secret squirrel acronym while so doing.
Can I play? My EDC CCW is a S&W S.H.I.E.L.D. 380 LR in a HSP G-CODE INCOG AIWB.
You can, but only if you explain what the letters in S.H.I.E.L.D. stand for, and what the LR after .380 is.
Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division
I was in the same boat last year and tried to press through but in the end just accepted that Glocks are not the best choice for me. I shoot other pistols better with less effort.
"A man's character is his fate."
Reply With Quote
