To slide stop or not

[GJM]

End of the day, I was running some drills that involved a slide lock reload with a Glock 17. I most recently have been shooting a Sig, with a JV trimmed slide stop, and had the slide stop manipulation with my dominant right thumb squared away.

Perhaps 1 in 10 slide lock reloads, I managed to get the timing wrong and drop the slide on an empty chamber with the Glock.

My thinking is given the rather low probability of having to make a slide lock reload with a high cap pistol outside of drills or games, the highest reliability method of dealing with a for real slide lock reload might be use my support thumb, or slingshot (my choice)/ overhand the slide?

[TGS]

End of the day, I was running some drills that involved a slide lock reload with a Glock 17. I most recently have been shooting a Sig, with a JV trimmed slide stop, and had the slide stop manipulation with my dominant right thumb squared away.

Perhaps 1 in 10 slide lock reloads, I managed to get the timing wrong and drop the slide on an empty chamber with the Glock.

My thinking is given the rather low probability of having to make a slide lock reload with a high cap pistol outside of drills or games, the highest reliability method of dealing with a for real slide lock reload might be to slingshot (my choice) or overhand the slide?

What about just waiting until the mag is seated instead of trying to time it?

[joshs]

Is this a normal occurrence for you with a Glock, or is it new and due to shooting the Sig?

[GJM]

I have experimented with pre-loading the slide stop on the Glock and P30 and never found that satisfactory.

Using my dominant thumb, the problem would be if the insertion was bobbled, I could get the timing wrong. When shooting the Glock before, I had to train my dominant thumb to stay still until the mag was fully seated. I had that squared away.

This afternoon that training was obviously forgotten. :)

That got me thinking about whether an alternative solution, that would be a tad slower but less subject to timing, might be a strategy to consider.

[joshs]

If using the preload method, there isn't any timing. The force of mag insertion pushes the slide release up into your thumb.

[GJM]

Sorry, poor diction on my part.

1) Using pre-loading, I couldn't make that work to my satisfaction.



2) Different method, using the dominant thumb (not pre-loading), the timing could be messed up with a bobbled insertion.

[ToddG]

I agree completely about the danger of trying to time it with the shooting hand thumb.

Not sure what issue it is you're experiencing with pre-loading the lever. It's absolutely the fastest (and most reliable) way I know assuming you can properly reach the lever with your shooting hand thumb.

Barring that, using the support hand to drop the slide is still substantially faster than racking it manually and eliminates the many potential failure modes associated with racking the slide. Quite a few instructors teach it as their first choice, though in my experience they tend to be instructors who don't know the difference between timing it and pre-loading the lever.

[GJM]

Please describe how to properly do the "pre-load" method, as it has been some time since I tried it.

[LittleLebowski]

Please describe how to properly do the "pre-load" method, as it has been some time since I tried it.

For me, I just rest my strong side thumb on the slide stop with a slight amount of pressure and let the force of reloading a fresh mag push the frame and thus the slide stop against my strong side thumb hard enough to trigger the release of the slide as the mag actually seats.

[Dan_S]

For me, I just rest my strong side thumb on the slide stop with a slight amount of pressure and let the force of reloading a fresh mag push the frame and thus the slide stop against my strong side thumb hard enough to trigger the release of the slide as the mag actually seats.

Your brother taught me to do that. It works well.

[JV_]

1) Using pre-loading, I couldn't make that work to my satisfaction.With a Glock, and an extended slide release (OEM), neither can I.
I end up dropping the slide too early.

[JHC]

GJM - when this occurs; is it not when running repetitions of a timed drill whereby you know when the slide lock will occur and your drilling for absolute speed?

This has occurred to me on occasion and it's always and only been in the scenario described above. And among drills/tests; its only occurred trying to run a FAST flat out or working on shoot 1 reload 1/2. I've never encountered it in a match or drills other than the aforementioned.

[David Armstrong]

End of the day, I was running some drills that involved a slide lock reload with a Glock 17. I most recently have been shooting a Sig, with a JV trimmed slide stop, and had the slide stop manipulation with my dominant right thumb squared away.

Perhaps 1 in 10 slide lock reloads, I managed to get the timing wrong and drop the slide on an empty chamber with the Glock.

My thinking is given the rather low probability of having to make a slide lock reload with a high cap pistol outside of drills or games, the highest reliability method of dealing with a for real slide lock reload might be use my support thumb, or slingshot (my choice)/ overhand the slide?
For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day.

[JV_]

You might lose a small fraction of a second of speedFor me, a slingshot is almost 3/4 of a second slower. For an open/OWB reload, that's about 50% slower.

I don't think that's a small fraction of a second.

[ToddG]

For me, I just rest my strong side thumb on the slide stop with a slight amount of pressure and let the force of reloading a fresh mag push the frame and thus the slide stop against my strong side thumb hard enough to trigger the release of the slide as the mag actually seats.

This.

The idea is to have your thumb in the right place but not actually press down with enough pressure to drop the slide (or even get close).

It's different than folks who autoforward the slide by slamming the magazine in very hard. When you preload the slide release you should get the same result even if you simulate a reload without actually having a magazine to go in the gun. It's the motion of the gun away from your support hand palm that trips the lever.

If your strong hand thumb isn't really in a position to retard the slide release's motion upward, or if your thumb is relaxed and allows the slide stop to move with the rest of the gun, the slide won't drop.

[TGS]

So, if pre-loading is a problem for you, why not just not pre-load it?

[CGA]

Barring that, using the support hand to drop the slide is still substantially faster than racking it manually and eliminates the many potential failure modes associated with racking the slide.

Todd, can you describe some of these potential failure modes?

[ToddG]

For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day.

I'd have to disagree. First, on the point of speed, JV already pointed out that for folks with a really solid slidelock reload technique, racking the slide manually can easily add 50% or more time to completion.

As for reliability, in my experience that's an utter myth. There are two things that can go wrong if you're using the slide release:

You can fail to engage the slide release, which means you can either hit the lever again (takes a fraction of a second) or just rack the slide as your Plan B (taking no more time than if you'd racked the slide anyway). Worst case scenario your failure is still as fast as racking the slide.
You can drop the slide too early because you tried to time it. Like JHC says this happens almost exclusively during planned reloads but I certainly concede it's bad. Nonetheless, what is the remedial action? Racking the slide, so again you're no worse off than if you'd used that technique to begin with.


So the key lesson here is that worst case if you mess up the slide catch, you're still as fast as the guy who was racking his slide. But all the times you don't make a mistake, you're substantially faster.

Racking the slide, on the other hand, has a multitude of problems including but not limited to:

Not grasping the slide hard enough causing the hand to slip off the gun rather than racking the slide. I see this so frequently among dedicated "rackers" that it's become a joke in my classes. I've watched experience high-speed .mil/LEO guys make this mistake. I've seen well known instructors (who teach slide racking) make this mistake. And what happens when you miss the slide? You have to recover, grab the slide again, and rack it again. And more than once I've watched someone who slipped off the slide multiple times on a single reload. Stress, cold/wet hands, or a combination thereof can make it a lot harder than some folks make it out to be.
Failing to retract the slide far enough, causing a feed failure. This requires a tap-rack (at least) to clear and makes an already slower reload technique absolutely glacial. If you're actually being shot at and your 3-second reload technique now requires an additional couple of seconds to "fix," you've eaten up a lot of that 5-second average gunfight time, huh?
Along similar lines is the person who rides the slide forward, again causing a feed failure.
I've seen people slice their hands open on rear sights trying to rack the slide aggressively under stress... the delay while they look in surprise at the blood streaming from their palm or finger has to be counted against the reload. I'd also put "making yourself bleed" near the bottom of my favorite self-defense techniques.
Similarly, on Berettas I've seen a few people who reached too far forward during their slide rack and burned themselves on the exposed barrel.


Someone is going to shout "poor technique" in defense of these mistakes but that doesn't wash. Missing the slide release lever or hitting it too early is just a "technique issue," too. We're not talking about when things go perfectly -- though the slide release is substantially and demonstrably faster then :cool: -- we're talking about the reality of human beings demonstrating their fallibility.

I'm willing to grant that racking the slide is almost universal, but for the vast majority of people that's a red herring. The odds of picking up some oddball pistol off the ground and needing it in a fight (and having a spare magazine for reloading to begin with) is infinitesimal. I'm far more concerned about operating my pistol that I have with me 99.5% of the time as optimally as I can.

[GJM]

So, if pre-loading is a problem for you, why not just not pre-load it?

1) Historically, I used my support thumb to work the slide stop.

2) In an effort to speed up my slide stop reloads, I experimented with pre-loading, and like JV reported, experienced problems and discontinued that method.

3) I then started using my dominant thumb. Infrequently, I would mis-time using my dominant thumb (not pre-loading), and get an empty chamber, or very, very infrequently, a stoppage. I trained my thumb to stay still, and the problem went away.

To answer JHC's question, yep it happened on a FASTest, when I was trying to max perform a known slide lock reload.

4) In the time I was not regularly shooting a Glock, I must have forgotten the "still thumb," because yesterday I saw the mis-timing.

5) I need to get a bunch of reps, and figure out exactly what the time difference is between dominant and support thumb, and work through this with some dedicated reload practice with the Glock.

[Kevin B.]

Quick War Story:

One of my guys insisted on using the overhand method to release the slide on his M-9. The potential to activate the slide-mounted safety using this technique was discussed and he dismissed it. He considered it a training issue.

The time came for him to execute a reload in a "stressful situation" and he inadvertently placed his M-9 on safe. When he went to re-engage his target, dead trigger. Tap, rack (using the overhand method), no bang. Repeat. Same result. One would have thought, the live rounds being ejected might have been a clue...

Fortunately, things worked out. He now uses the slide release.

FWIW, I bounce between Glocks, 1911s, the M-9, and the occasional SIG and have not had a problem using the slide release.

[ToddG]

The time came for him to execute a reload in a "stressful situation" and he inadvertently placed his M-9 on safe. When he went to re-engage his target, dead trigger. Tap, rack (using the overhand method), no bang. Repeat. Same result. One would have thought, the live rounds being ejected might have been a clue...

Ernest Langdon used to see students at the USMC High Risk Personnel class who'd rack their way through an entire M9 magazine trying to clear that same self-induced problem during one of the stress exercises.


FWIW, I bounce between Glocks, 1911s, the M-9, and the occasional SIG and have not had a problem using the slide release.

I should remember but don't: which hand to do you use to hit the slide release?

[Kevin B.]

Currently, support hand across the board. Pre-Baghdad modification, I used my firing hand thumb on Glocks and Sigs, support hand on 1911s and M-9s. These days I don't have the length/range of motion/tactile feedback in my firing hand thumb to reliably hit the slide release.

[ToddG]

When you were switching thumbs dependent on which gun you were using, did you ever get mixed up? What kind of transition training (even if it was just a few minutes of familiarization handling) did you need to go from a R-thumb gun to a L-thumb gun, so to speak?

While it's slower, using the support hand thumb is definitely more universal than the strong hand thumb and as I tell folks in class, I can't criticize someone who chooses to use that method over pre-loading with the strong thumb as long as they understand the pros and cons.

[Jay Cunningham]

Just as an aside, it probably makes a lot of sense to work in some commonality between a primary long gun and secondary handgun if it's reasonable.

If a guy with an M4 carbine is taught to use his support thumb to release the bolt it probably makes a lot of sense to teach using the support thumb to release the slide on his M9.

Not exactly the same discussion, just thinking out loud.

[Kevin B.]

When you were switching thumbs dependent on which gun you were using, did you ever get mixed up? What kind of transition training (even if it was just a few minutes of familiarization handling) did you need to go from a R-thumb gun to a L-thumb gun, so to speak?

It was very much a deliberate process. It usually involved 10-14 days of daily dry & live fire. While I can't put a hard number on it, I would say I was consistently meeting the standard for a reload within my first ten reps or so.

It is also worth noting that the standard for a reload was relatively low by forum standards. The standard for one - reload from slide lock - one, starting from the ready was 3.25 seconds. When shooting a pistol I had been working with for quite a while, I was able to do much better than that. When transitioning, I rarely had a problem meeting the standard, so reloads were not foremost among my concerns when making a change.

I do recall occassionally "stealing" a look at the slide release location during the reload, especially when wearing gloves. I still find myself doing that every once in a while. I can't quantify the need nor is it deliberate. I think it is a by-product of not getting enough tactile feedback to remember which gun I am shooting and having to "remind" myself.

[Kevin B.]

Just as an aside, it probably makes a lot of sense to work in some commonality between a primary long gun and secondary handgun if it's reasonable.

One of the things I like about the 1911 is that uses many of the same movements required to operated my M-4.

[ToddG]

KB -- Thanks, makes a lot sense.


Just as an aside, it probably makes a lot of sense to work in some commonality between a primary long gun and secondary handgun if it's reasonable.

In terms of actual neuro pathway formation I doubt there is any significant benefit to that.

Much like "I rack because then my reload and my malf clearance are the same," these all fall into what I think of as the Wax On, Wax Off Myth. You can wax your car a thousand times a day, that's not going to make your brain communicate with your hand more quickly when your brain is shouting block that punch! instead of make that shiny!

Hitting the slide release is a coordinated, specific act that benefits from familiarization and habituation. Move the slide release a little bit or just change its shape/angle (going from stock to Vickers to extended on a Glock for example) can change the speed and reliability of the technique until it's trained. Now thing how dramatically different things are when hitting the bolt release on an AR... location, direction of pressure applied, position of hands/arms, weight/inertia, etc.

edited to add: from a teaching standpoint, commonality of action is certainly a benefit for both the teacher and student, though.

[taadski]

GJM - when this occurs; is it not when running repetitions of a timed drill whereby you know when the slide lock will occur and your drilling for absolute speed?

This has occurred to me on occasion and it's always and only been in the scenario described above. And among drills/tests; its only occurred trying to run a FAST flat out or working on shoot 1 reload 1/2. I've never encountered it in a match or drills other than the aforementioned.


I wish this were the case with my experience. :( Over the span of a couple months last year, in a phase when I was admittedly working hard on my reloads on the timer, I mis-timed releasing the slide on several occasions during actual matches resulting in an empty chamber. If that's not bad enough, twice my mis-timing was so impeccable (thanks murphy) that it induced a failure to feed that then morphed into a double feed when I tap-racked it.

I seem to have worked through the issue by adding just a touch more attention to deliberately feeling the magazine seat before proceeding. (duh...) The part that was a bit hard to swallow for me was it was something that cropped up out of the blue just by trying to go faster after YEARS of shooting the same platform (work, games, off duty carry) without problem.


t

[Jay Cunningham]

LCD type concepts regarding a primary weapon is a separate argument from LCD concepts carrying over from a primary to a secondary weapon.

I'm not particularly into LCD solutions either.

BUT

There's the concept of pistol as secondary weapon with the long gun as the primary weapon. If a guy gets paid to carry the long gun and go look for trouble, he should probably be drilling a lot on his long gun (even more than IT professionals!) thereby devoting more time to it than pure pistol practice.

I think working towards optimized techniques (not LCD concepts) on the primary weapon makes a lot of sense. I think techniques that can be easily carried over from this primary to the secondary weapon make a lot of sense too.

Not that any of the above really applies to me; but I still think about it. It does apply to some of my students.

[ToddG]

My point is that I don't think there are really a lot of carry-over skills beyond trigger manipulation, and even that's different enough that plenty of folks who can keep a carbine stable through a trigger press cannot do it as well with a pistol.

[David Armstrong]

For me, a slingshot is almost 3/4 of a second slower. For an open/OWB reload, that's about 50% slower.

I don't think that's a small fraction of a second.
My experience is that the difference is not nearly that much. But even given the longer time frame, I still don't see it playing that much of a deal in the successful outcome of a fight. If it does I'd suggest you are already in more trouble than a bit of reload speed!:D

[LOKNLOD]

...things that can go wrong if you're using the slide release:

You can drop the slide too early because you tried to time it. Like JHC says this happens almost exclusively during planned reloads but I certainly concede it's bad. Nonetheless, what is the remedial action? Racking the slide, so again you're no worse off than if you'd used that technique to begin with.



I don't think it's entirely fair to say that racking the slide to fix it means you're no worse off than racking the slide to begin with -- that is only true if you release the slide too early to pick up a round, and realize it immediately. However when I've missed timing it's usually been by a small enough error that I didn't know it until I pressed the trigger on the next target and got a big fat "click". Re-racking at that point means I've wasted a lot of movement and time before I get that first round fired.


I used to be an overhand rack guy, because...it was grossly tactical or something someone had told me. I'm just a normal dominant-thumb slide dropper now. I've tried the pre-load/still thumb technique but just can't get it to work well for me. Frequently it gave the premature drop. Then as i tried to work less on pre-loading, and more on the "still thumb" thing, I ended up with exaggerated sloppy motions that were way slower than just dropping the slide after the mag is seated. Not in a "try and time it" kind of way, because that goes back to the pre-load/early drop problem, but in a very deliberate way of dropping the slide with my dominant thumb after the mag is seated, while my support hand is leaving the magwell and regaining it's grip.

In the big scheme of things, the time it takes for the slide to drop is smaller than the time it takes for me to reorient the gun and reacquire my weak hand grip, so the slide drop step is NOT on my "critical path" for the timeline between firing the last round of one magazine to firing the first round of a new magazine (Using a slide rack method definitely places that process square in the middle of the critical path, however). There's some float there as to timing and duration such that actuating the slide release can take a little longer than "perfect" and still not affect the overall process. Perhaps at some point my overall reload will have improved to the point that the slide release step starts to matter, and then the pre-load technique or something else may be worth working on. Right now, working on the slide drop when there is so much room for improvement in other areas of my reload (like accessing the spare mag and getting it to the gun) that spending the time working on the slide drop is not as fruitful as focus on other areas, and in a time and resource constrained life, I've got to pick my battles.

[JV_]

My experience is that the difference is not nearly that much. What are your numbers?


But even given the longer time frame, I still don't see it playing that much of a deal in the successful outcome of a fight.I'll be able to reload and send 3 more shots downrange in the time it would take me to reload via slingshot.



ETA: Here are some good numbers, by surf:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1372950&postcount=132


Pistol Reload Comparison - Glock 17
- Primary hand thumb on slide stop = 1.59 sec
- Support hand thumb on slide stop = 2.09 sec
- Slide Lock reload, Overhand release = 2.12 sec
- Slide lock reload, sling shot release = 2.23 sec
- Speed reload = 1.59 sec

[ToddG]

My experience is that the difference is not nearly that much.

To borrow a phrase I know you live by, you've got to compare apples to apples. Compare a highly practiced "slide stopper" to a highly practiced "racker" and 3/4 of a second is probably a good average. If you're talking about new shooters with no skill either way, then the difference is probably a lot less. As such I think your comment re: speed is true for newbies and untrue for people who are going to put in the time to develop their reload skill.

At the end of the day, there's just no way to get around the dramatically greater amount of movement necessary to rack the slide manually.


But even given the longer time frame, I still don't see it playing that much of a deal in the successful outcome of a fight. If it does I'd suggest you are already in more trouble than w bit of reload speed!:D

If we didn't think reload speed mattered we wouldn't have to practice reloads. I'm not suggesting it's commonly a deciding factor, but having an empty gun in the middle of a violent interpersonal encounter can't possibly be considered a positive experience. Sure you may be hiding happily behind cover but if not then that 3/4 second means three more bullets the bad guy is sending toward you before you get back in the fight.


I don't think it's entirely fair to say that racking the slide to fix it means you're no worse off than racking the slide to begin with -- that is only true if you release the slide too early to pick up a round, and realize it immediately. However when I've missed timing it's usually been by a small enough error that I didn't know it until I pressed the trigger on the next target and got a big fat "click". Re-racking at that point means I've wasted a lot of movement and time before I get that first round fired.

That's valid. I cannot remember the last time my slide went home prematurely without me knowing it happened, but that's a function of greater familiarity just like being able to tell most of the time when the last round in a mag is feeding into the chamber. And neither of those are abilities I'd count on in a fight because I've got no idea whether I'd be attuned enough to the gun at that moment.

Again, for folks who find this problem happening often enough to be a concern (and that may be "it happened once, I'm concerned") then using the support hand thumb instead alleviates the problem at the cost of extra time.


In the big scheme of things, the time it takes for the slide to drop is smaller than the time it takes for me to reorient the gun and reacquire my weak hand grip, so the slide drop step is NOT on my "critical path" for the timeline between firing the last round of one magazine to firing the first round of a new magazine (Using a slide rack method definitely places that process square in the middle of the critical path, however).

I don't want to begin extending my gun forward after the reload until I've got both hands in a full firing grip. As such, any extra time it takes for me to have both hands on the gun is "in the critical path" ... and since I don't normally purposely rest either thumb pad on the slide release that means there is necessarily added time if the slide hasn't dropped faster than my support hand can get back on the gun.

[David Armstrong]

I'd have to disagree. First, on the point of speed, JV already pointed out that for folks with a really solid slidelock reload technique, racking the slide manually can easily add 50% or more time to completion.
The problem with that is most folks don't have a really solid slidelock loading technique.


As for reliability, in my experience that's an utter myth.
And in mine it is absolutely correct. Again, we tend to train very different types of people these days, which often explains the different viewpoints, IMO. I've seen far more problems with the slide release than with the rack, and my experience is that it is often quite a bit slower for newer shooters. As so often happens, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, the trick is knowing how to minimize the disadvantages while maximizing the advantages.


Racking the slide, on the other hand, has a multitude of problems including but not limited to:
And I can only ask why is it that this multitude of problems just doesn't seem to happen anywhere else in the world? I've been to a lot of places and I know I've been out of the loop for a while, but when entire countries build a training program around something and that same something is taught at some of the highest level private training academies, I just have to question the idea that it is particularly problematic. I know you were at SIG after I had any classes from them, for example, but my SIG class taught while both were acceptable the racking was preferred and recommend.

I'm willing to grant that racking the slide is almost universal, but for the vast majority of people that's a red herring. The odds of picking up some oddball pistol off the ground and needing it in a fight (and having a spare magazine for reloading to begin with) is infinitesimal. I'm far more concerned about operating my pistol that I have with me 99.5% of the time as optimally as I can.
Agreed. To me the universality is more for clearance issues, malfunction drills, and commonality of training across platforms....you don't have to re-learn wheres and hows if you change guns. As you said, "Hitting the slide release is a coordinated, specific act that benefits from familiarization and habituation. Move the slide release a little bit or just change its shape/angle (going from stock to Vickers to extended on a Glock for example) can change the speed and reliability of the technique until it's trained." Folks that will devote the time and effort of gaining the familiarization and habituation for a specific platform can probably benefit from the slide release. Others, maybe not so much.

[David Armstrong]

What are your numbers?
I'd have to go out and put it on the timer these days, but I think that is sort of my point. When one practices a lot the numbers get to be distorted. I spent years training almost exclusively with the rack, and when I was on the line with others I'd consistently get the reload shot off faster than those who were using the slide stop. What I was referring to were my students...normal, low-speed non-dedicated shooters who are getting their CHL, taking their first class, shoot maybe 100 rounds a year, and so on. To me, thta is what matters. A really good C3 shooter, for example, can due the full presentation in under 1 second. But because a really good shooter who proctices a lot can do it does that mean when we talk about C3 carry we focus him, or do we focus on the more normal shooter?


I'll be able to reload and send 3 more shots downrange in the time it would take me to reload via slingshot.
And I would expect that to be the exception rather than the norm.

[David Armstrong]

To borrow a phrase I know you live by, you've got to compare apples to apples. Compare a highly practiced "slide stopper" to a highly practiced "racker" and 3/4 of a second is probably a good average. If you're talking about new shooters with no skill either way, then the difference is probably a lot less. As such I think your comment re: speed is true for newbies and untrue for people who are going to put in the time to develop their reload skill.
Yes, I think I addressed that in my next post, although I would suggest that the 3/4 second difference is still far more than the norm. Looking at the numbers JV posted, for example, we find the difference between an overhand slide rack and a support hand thumb to be only 3 one-hundredths of a second. Hard to consider that significant. But thta is a good point..do we look at times and techniques based on what the best of the best do, or is it better when judging technique to focus on what works best for the more typical run-of-the-mill shooter?


At the end of the day, there's just no way to get around the dramatically greater amount of movement necessary to rack the slide manually.
Sure there is. See above: .03 seconds. And that assumes that there are no advantages to be accrued by using the other method. Again, there are usually reasons a particular practice is developed and maintained worldwide. Admittedly sometimes they are bad reasons, but sometimes they are good reasons.


If we didn't think reload speed mattered we wouldn't have to practice reloads. I'm not suggesting it's commonly a deciding factor, but having an empty gun in the middle of a violent interpersonal encounter can't possibly be considered a positive experience. Sure you may be hiding happily behind cover but if not then that 3/4 second means three more bullets the bad guy is sending toward you before you get back in the fight.
The question is not if it mattered at all, the question again is how much it matters. I'm just not aware of many, if any, circumstances where reloads matter at all in CCW, particularly where a fraction of a second more or less doing the reload played much of a role. If you are not hiding behind cover will 2.09 seconds really mean that much more than 2.12 seconds?

[JV_]

What I was referriing to were my students...normal, low-speed non-dedicated shooters who are getting their CHL, taking their first class, shoot maybe 100 rounds a year, and so on.

You replied to the OP, and commented that he'd only lose a small fraction of second. I'm disagreeing with that, and I provided my numbers, and another accomplished shooters numbers.

For many of PFs members, and more specifically the OP, the difference between the two reload techniques (strong hand thumb and other) is substantial.

[David Armstrong]

You replied to the OP, and commented that he'd only lose a small fraction of second. I'm disagreeing with that, and I provided my numbers, and another accomplished shooters numbers.

For many of PFs members, and more specifically the OP, the difference between the two reload techniques (strong hand thumb and other) is substantial.
If we are wanting to get pissy, I guess I could argue that since the OP did not post any times your assumption of what he would lose or not is totally invalid. Or I supppose we could argue about whether 3/4 of a second constitutes a small fraction of a second?? Or I suppose we could even discuss how on the internet, as in common conversation, "you" is often used as a generic term when discussing a concept as opposed to a specific person? Of course, since one of your accomplished shooters numbers figured out to .03 seconds, I suppose I could even argue that you have proven my point, as I think even the most jaded among us woudl agree that .03 seconds is a small fraction of a second. Geez.:confused:

[JV_]

If we are wanting to get pissyI'm not pissy, I'm just trying to keep the diversions to a minimum.


suppose I could even argue that you have proven my point, as I think even the most jaded among us woudl agree that .03 seconds is a small fraction of a second. Geez.:confused:I'm not particularly interested in weak hand thumb to sling shot comparisons. Is that difference small? Probably. The difference is really between strong hand thumb and everything else.

[TGS]

And I can only ask why is it that this multitude of problems just doesn't seem to happen anywhere else in the world? I've been to a lot of places and I know I've been out of the loop for a while, but when entire countries build a training program around something and that same something is taught at some of the highest level private training academies, I just have to question the idea that it is particularly problematic.


The US military used to teach a dramatically different manual of arms for the M16 back in your heyday. And, damn, it was the best military in the world teaching the best techniques on the latest and greatest......what could possibly ever have been improved? What was so wrong with the techniques? An example would be reloading with the strong-hand; I really have to question the idea as being problematic.

[David Armstrong]

I'm not pissy, I'm just trying to keep the diversions to a minimum.
I'm not sure why you would think that discussing the speed and reliability of a technique was a diversion. Seems that is what the OP was asking about: "My thinking is given the rather low probability of having to make a slide lock reload with a high cap pistol outside of drills or games, the highest reliability method of dealing with a for real slide lock reload might be use my support thumb, or slingshot (my choice)/ overhand the slide?"


I'm not particularly interested in weak hand thumb to sling shot comparisons. Is that difference small? Probably. The difference is really between strong hand thumb and everything else.
Again, in normal shooter terms, I doubt the difference is very much and would question if the difference matters outside of the range and competition arenas. But since the OP specifically asked about support thumb in comparison to the rack, wouldn't changing focus to the strong hand thumb be a diversion??:confused:

[BaiHu]

I am the least professional of this group here, but I have to throw my recent experience in here, for what little it counts.

I use the primary thumb technique ever since Todd offered it to me as an improvement to my reload and it works for me. However, I learned the over hand/sling shot method first and I would like to weigh in on the new shooter/pro shooter issue that I see happening b/w David and JV/Todd.

A recent example: I was assisting an NRA basic pistol class and during the range segment, I had an older woman who could not over hand or sling shot due to strength issues. Her primary thumb was also too short to hit the slide release. Her trigger finger was also not strong enough for a DA pull of a revolver and she'd have to use 2 thumbs on a revolver to get it into SA. So I had her use the off-hand/secondary thumb to release the slide. Yes, it was a gift from my friend who was the head instructor.

So, if we are talking about super-ninja-gun-guy or we're talking about elderly-grandma-arthritic-finger-woman, I'd say the primary thumb/secondary thumb handles the vast majority of people's issues way more handily than the overhand/slingshot method.

As a final side note, would that woman have a hell of a problem on a tap/rack when she tries to clear a malf? Yes. Should she find an easier revolver than what we had access too? Yes. But then we're off the topic of the OP's initial question, which is slide/stop or not, not revolver or semi-auto.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

[David Armstrong]

The US military used to teach a dramatically different manual of arms for the M16 back in your heyday. And, damn, it was the best military in the world teaching the best techniques on the latest and greatest......what could possibly ever have been improved? What was so wrong with the techniques? An example would be reloading with the strong-hand; I really have to question the idea as being problematic.
Ummm, I'm old but not that old. I was never taught that the strong-hand reload was the preferred method with the 16. M1 Garand, yes, strong hand only but AFAIK we were taught the same reload technique for the 16 as is used today. If you were prone and loading from the right-side pouch was the only time you were supposed to reload w/strong hand, IIRC.

[David Armstrong]

from BaiHu:
I am the least professional of this group here, but I have to throw my recent experience in here, for what little it counts.
It counts jsut as much as some of the old dinosaurs, I assure you<G>! And it is a good point. It is good to have an understanding of a number of alternatives to any technique, as sometimes physical issues or problems may significantly impact what can be done. I was completely amazed the first time I met someone who couldn't do an emergency slide rack by swiping the gun down the outside of the thigh. Now I can teach about a half-dozen different ways to do an emergency rack, and different folks find some easier than others.

[JV_]

I'm not sure why you would think that discussing the speed and reliability of a technique was a diversion.The diversion is when you try to compare two slow techniques, where the time difference is insignificant in order to bolster your claim that it's only a small fraction of a second that you lose. The argument isn't about which of the slow techniques is faster, it's about the one that's clearly faster and the others.

I'm not going to debate whether 3/4ths is a small fraction, or a big one, I think that's clear to most people. And when you're talking about .75s, where the overall time is < 2s, it's a significant number to consider.

If the faster technique isn't foolproof for someone, they should either fix that, or use one of the other slower techniques as long as it's reliable.

[GJM]

For what it is worth, I spent five minutes last night on dry fire slide stop manipulation with my dominant thumb, and had no problems with using my dominant thumb (not preloading) in my range session today including on multiple runs of the FASTest (see drill of the week thread). Since I previously was not having issues similarly using my dominant thumb with the Sig, it makes me believe using the dominant thumb is platform specific more so than the support thumb or using the slide.

[Chuck Whitlock]

......... the new shooter/pro shooter issue that I see happening b/w David and JV/Todd.



I think this becomes the crux of the issue....who is the target audience. In my agency, with an authorized strength of less than 20, I am the only one interested enough to frequent boards like this. Perhaps one other officer might pay out of pocket for a course offered by one of the instructors here.

In that light, I prefer to teach the overhand rack (issued weapon is G22), mainly to reduce the effects of Hick's Law, and in that reloads are the exact same manipulation as immediate action, and in practicing one they are practicing both. This is while they are squarely in the 'conscious incompetence/conscious competence' area, and have to think their way through the steps.

I think that once they think to themselves, "Hey, I think that maybe I can do this reload faster by using the slide stop," then they are probably far enough along to explore the advantages it can offer. Until then, it is another fork in the decision tree.

[Westtexasrancher]

I found it alot harder to miss the rack since I have a giant rmr to rack off of. Hand hits it and its not skipping over it. Interesting thread, lots of great info here!

[David Armstrong]

The diversion is when you try to compare two slow techniques, where the time difference is insignificant in order to bolster your claim that it's only a small fraction of a second that you lose. The argument isn't about which of the slow techniques is faster, it's about the one that's clearly faster and the others.
Again, I refer you to the OP: "My thinking is given the rather low probability of having to make a slide lock reload with a high cap pistol outside of drills or games, the highest reliability method of dealing with a for real slide lock reload might be use my support thumb, or slingshot (my choice)/ overhand the slide?" *Support thumb, slingshot, or overhand.* That is what I compared using the times YOU posted.


I'm not going to debate whether 3/4ths is a small fraction, or a big one, I think that's clear to most people. And when you're talking about .75s, where the overall time is < 2s, it's a significant number to consider.
The time is not <2 seconds IMO, the time to look at is the overall time of the gunfight.

[JV_]

Again, I refer you to the OP:I refer you to your own statement that started this:


For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day.

If you go [from strong hand thumb] to slingshot/overhand method, the time is ~3/4 of a second. If you have data from skilled shooters that disagrees with these numbers, please post it.

If they're not competent in either reload method, and fumble around, the difference may be negligible. Incompetent shooters aren't really the target audience for this thread.


The time is not <2 seconds IMO, the time to look at is the overall time of the gunfight. I don't agree. The time I'm concerned with is how long my gun is sidelined during the gunfight. Do I want to be sidelined for 1.5s or 2.25s? As long as it's 100%, I'll take the 1.5s option.

[LittleLebowski]

I don't understand why a trained shooter can't use the fastest method and transition to the slingshot method if needed. To me, this is the training equivalent of wearing body armor with bug out bag to the beach. It's not like dropping the slide release fails most of the shooters on this forum in any measurable percentage, right?

[David Armstrong]

I refer you to your own statement that started this:



If you go [from strong hand thumb] to slingshot/overhand method, the time is ~3/4 of a second. If you have data from skilled shooters that disagrees with these numbers, please post it.
The OP, again, asked about the difference between support thumb and racking. Minsicule difference. And again, what constitutes a skilled shooter and should that be our measuring stick is part of the issue. I can give you my times if you would like, but i'm not sure what that would prove.


If they're not competent in either reload method, and fumble around, the difference may be negligible. Incompetent shooters aren't really the target audience for this thread.
Not highly skilled and practiced in a specific reload technique does not equate to incompetent. If they are reasonably competent in both methods the time differencealso becomes smaller. In addition there are the other advantages they may accrue.


I don't agree. The time I'm concerned with is how long my gun is sidelined during the gunfight. Do I want to be sidelined for 1.5s or 2.25s? As long as it's 100%, I'll take the 1.5s option.
My concern is winning the fight. If you are in the fight long enough to need to reload and also have the capability to reload, and are in a position where that fraction of a second makes or breaks you, IMO that fraction of a second is not your biggest concern.

[David Armstrong]

For what it is worth, I spent five minutes last night on dry fire slide stop manipulation with my dominant thumb, and had no problems with using my dominant thumb (not preloading) in my range session today including on multiple runs of the FASTest (see drill of the week thread). Since I previously was not having issues similarly using my dominant thumb with the Sig, it makes me believe using the dominant thumb is platform specific more so than the support thumb or using the slide.
I'm sure you are right, which is why this whole fraction of a second speed thing is rather silly to me. On gun "A" method "1" might be a fraction of a second faster, on gun "B" method "2" might be a fraction faster, and so on.

[JV_]

The OP, again, asked about the difference between support thumb and racking. Minsicule difference. It was one of the things he asked about, but that's not what you answered in your post (the one I keep quoting).

You can keep looking for ways to make your statement correct, in your mind, but it's not working for me. I'm not going on for dozens of pages with you. I disagree with your post, and I've posted examples showing why. Until you post up some specific examples, and not talk in generalities, I think I'm done here.


If they are reasonably competent in both methods the time differencealso becomes smaller.Surf, who's times I already posted, has commented that he practices all versions - there's a big gap between strong hand thumb and everything else.


that fraction of a second is not your biggest concern.Not your biggest concern doesn't mean you should ignore it.

[ToddG]

I know you were at SIG after I had any classes from them, for example, but my SIG class taught while both were acceptable the racking was preferred and recommend.

That's what they taught while I was there, too. I discussed it at length with two different senior people at the Academy over the five years I worked for SIG and both of them gave the same answer: the primary reason they taught racking was because it was the same technique regardless of whether you're right- or left-handed. SIG always maintained that all the primary controls (or literally all the controls on DAO/DAK guns) were "ambidextrous." They did this by pretending the slide release lever didn't exist and instructing people to rack instead.

To the best of my knowledge, no one who ever shot competitively for SIG used the slide racking method. None of them were left-handed, either.


The OP, again, asked about the difference between support thumb and racking. Minsicule difference.

I don't believe this is true. I was a "racker" for many, many years and for the past nine months or so I've been using the support thumb on my 1911. Having tried both the support thumb and the rack, there is no question whatsoever that when we're talking about the time it takes to put an accurate shot on a target with a good enough grip that you've got proper control for followup shots racking the slide is substantially slower. The difference between strong and weak thumb is less than the difference between weak thumb and racking.


And again, what constitutes a skilled shooter and should that be our measuring stick is part of the issue.

If we're talking about an individual's practice, goals, and achievements of course it should. "Am I better than someone who never practices?" isn't really much of a standard. Heck, if that was your standard, most of us could probably chamber load one round at a time faster than the newbie. As soon as we start talking about time being a factor, then presumably we're talking about people who are motivated enough to measure such things in their ongoing training.

If we're talking about training huge numbers of unskilled and undermotivated shooters, then it's a different matter. As pointed out above re: SIG, racking the slide is very seductive because it makes the instructor's job easier. Instead of teaching the best way for each student, he only has to teach one way that is universal and good enough. Also, as others have said, it has commonality with malfunction clearance techniques. Again, this is simply easier to teach. (arguments that practicing racking your reloads will also build up some kind of "muscle memory" for malfunction clearance are contradictory to what we know about how neural pathways are created in skill-building)


I can give you my times if you would like, but i'm not sure what that would prove.

I think it would give a good reference point. You think the difference is tiny. Is that because you can do a rack reload in 1.0s or is it because your slide release reload takes half an hour?


If they are reasonably competent in both methods the time difference also becomes smaller.

That has not been my experience. As I said earlier, people I've seen who are highly skilled at racking are still substantially (by my standards) slower than people who are equally skilled using the slide release.


In addition there are the other advantages they may accrue.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. As I've already said, I've witnessed far more problems with people trying to rack the slide under stress in high speed exercises than I have with people hitting the slide release.


My concern is winning the fight. If you are in the fight long enough to need to reload and also have the capability to reload, and are in a position where that fraction of a second makes or breaks you, IMO that fraction of a second is not your biggest concern.

By definition, if as you say "that fraction of a second makes or breaks you" then I would say it most certainly is my biggest concern because the entire outcome hinges on it. How often that happens is certainly unknowable and thus eternally debatable but when it matters, it matters. And regardless, whether it is the make-or-break issue, whoever won a fight by having a slower reload? I just don't see the argument in favor of doing it a sub-optimal way.


I'm sure you are right, which is why this whole fraction of a second speed thing is rather silly to me. On gun "A" method "1" might be a fraction of a second faster, on gun "B" method "2" might be a fraction faster, and so on.

If I had a gun that was so poorly designed in terms of ergonomics that it was somehow faster for me to rack the slide than release it with the slide release lever I'd consider the gun at fault and would, if at all possible, look for a new gun. Basically the choice you're presenting is between The Slow Way and An Even Slower Way. Someone may choose to live with that compromise for some other reason, but it has absolutely no bearing on which technique is better when both techniques are available.

[BoppaBear]

This thread has given me something to think about. I have always used the overhand method, as a quasi workaround for the "mechanical" slide release lever. The thought behind this is the old, "anything mechanical can break" thought process, along with muscle memory and the fact that every gun's slide release is a bit different in location, size, ease. Not that it's right, but that was my thinking. My HK's levers are ridiculously easy to actuate. Even though the P30's slide will release upon firmly seating a mag (many other guns do this too), this also isn't something I want to rely on since I carry my sk part of the time and it does not "auto release" consistently.

[David Armstrong]

It was one of the things he asked about, but that's not what you answered in your post (the one I keep quoting).
We'll disagree. IMO I answered the post directly, you are the one who keeps trying to divert it into a strong thumb versus X discussion.


You can keep looking for ways to make your statement correct, in your mind, but it's not working for me. I'm not going on for dozens of pages with you. I disagree with your post, and I've posted examples showing why. Until you post up some specific examples, and not talk in generalities, I think I'm done here.
OK, bye bye.


Surf, who's times I already posted, has commented that he practices all versions - there's a big gap between strong hand thumb and everything else.
So if I go time a couple of shooters and their gaps are not so big, what will that prove???


Not your biggest concern doesn't mean you should ignore it.
I agree, which is why I've never said that.

[David Armstrong]

That's what they taught while I was there, too. I discussed it at length with two different senior people at the Academy over the five years I worked for SIG and both of them gave the same answer: the primary reason they taught racking was because it was the same technique regardless of whether you're right- or left-handed. SIG always maintained that all the primary controls (or literally all the controls on DAO/DAK guns) were "ambidextrous." They did this by pretending the slide release lever didn't exist and instructing people to rack instead.

To the best of my knowledge, no one who ever shot competitively for SIG used the slide racking method. None of them were left-handed, either.
OK, so competitive shooters do one thing because the speed issue is paramount to them, but SIG says that speed is less important than other factors when one is training the more normal shooter?? If that was the point, I think I agree with that.


I don't believe this is true. I was a "racker" for many, many years and for the past nine months or so I've been using the support thumb on my 1911. Having tried both the support thumb and the rack, there is no question whatsoever that when we're talking about the time it takes to put an accurate shot on a target with a good enough grip that you've got proper control for followup shots racking the slide is substantially slower. The difference between strong and weak thumb is less than the difference between weak thumb and racking.
On the 1911. On a Glock with a normal slide lock, perhaps not so much? On my Walther P5 definitely slower to use the lever than to pull the slide-- for me. Using JV's data, .50 seconds strong thumb versus weak thumb, .03 seconds weak thumb versus rack.


If we're talking about an individual's practice, goals, and achievements of course it should. "Am I better than someone who never practices?" isn't really much of a standard.
I agree. But if the standard is "skilled shooter" and is defined as folks like Enos, Mikulek, Sevigney, etc. the number becomes rather irrelevant.


If we're talking about training huge numbers of unskilled and undermotivated shooters, then it's a different matter. As pointed out above re: SIG, racking the slide is very seductive because it makes the instructor's job easier. Instead of teaching the best way for each student, he only has to teach one way that is universal and good enough. Also, as others have said, it has commonality with malfunction clearance techniques. Again, this is simply easier to teach. (arguments that practicing racking your reloads will also build up some kind of "muscle memory" for malfunction clearance are contradictory to what we know about how neural pathways are created in skill-building)
I'd question the idea that the reason to teach the rack is for ease of training. If that was it you could just as easily teach a slide lever release to everyone.


I think it would give a good reference point. You think the difference is tiny. Is that because you can do a rack reload in 1.0s or is it because your slide release reload takes half an hour?
I question the concept, but I'll go out tomorrow and run some splits with different guns and get back with you.


That has not been my experience. As I said earlier, people I've seen who are highly skilled at racking are still substantially (by my standards) slower than people who are equally skilled using the slide release.
Again I think there is a problem with terms. Is highly skilled the same as reasonably competent?


We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. As I've already said, I've witnessed far more problems with people trying to rack the slide under stress in high speed exercises than I have with people hitting the slide release.
Again, perhaps it is apples and oranges? 90% of my training and background is for fighting with the firearm, which really doesn't emphasize speed over everything. And my background is that the slide release is far more likely to be missed, the malfunction rate is higher, and so on. I know that was the belief of Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, and John Farnam, any one of which has probably seen more students than you and I put together. I don't know the doctrine with the M9, but when I was in the military doctrine then was that the 1911 should be racked to release the slide whenever possible, with the reason given that it was less likely to cause a malfunction.


By definition, if as you say "that fraction of a second makes or breaks you" then I would say it most certainly is my biggest concern because the entire outcome hinges on it. How often that happens is certainly unknowable and thus eternally debatable but when it matters, it matters. And regardless, whether it is the make-or-break issue, whoever won a fight by having a slower reload? I just don't see the argument in favor of doing it a sub-optimal way.
That again assumes it is sub-optimal. As for the entire outcome hinging on it, it seems much like some of my students who are worried they have to make a certain minimal score on the last test to pass. If they had done what needed to be done before then, they wouldn't be in that spot now. To get to this point it means we had to have not solved the problem with a full magazine already, and also have managed to empty a magazine without getting to a position of cover.


If I had a gun that was so poorly designed in terms of ergonomics that it was somehow faster for me to rack the slide than release it with the slide release lever I'd consider the gun at fault and would, if at all possible, look for a new gun. Basically the choice you're presenting is between The Slow Way and An Even Slower Way. Someone may choose to live with that compromise for some other reason, but it has absolutely no bearing on which technique is better when both techniques are available.
Again, there is that emphasis on speed. Some might like the gun for other attributes and feel the increased (admittedly a questionable point) reliability or ergonomics makes up for the fractionally slower reload. Lots of folks still choose to carry revolvers for just that reason.

[ToddG]

So if I go time a couple of shooters and their gaps are not so big, what will that prove???

If only the gaps are reported, nothing.

If their overall speed with various techniques is reported, quite a bit. The continued area of contention seems to be primarily whether skilled shooters are adversely affected by racking the slide compared to using the slide release (with either thumb). If everyone in the dataset is slower than molasses or if no one in the dataset can perform a decent slide release reload then the results have a lot less weight given the offered conclusion.

[ToddG]

OK, so competitive shooters do one thing because the speed issue is paramount to them, but SIG says that speed is less important than other factors when one is training the more normal shooter?? If that was the point, I think I agree with that.

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said.

First, I never said "normal shooters" and certainly didn't distinguish them from "competitive shooters." What I did say was that the primary reason behind SIG's methodology was marketing. They also wanted to teach a method that was easy for the instructor regardless of whether it was best for the student. I further noted that the serious pistol shooters at SIG who shot competitively all used the slide release.

You continue to jump back and forth between saying speed isn't an issue and saying that the method you're advocating is "fast enough." I'd submit that to people for whom speed is an issue, "fast enough" isn't fast enough.


On the 1911. On a Glock with a normal slide lock, perhaps not so much? On my Walther P5 definitely slower to use the lever than to pull the slide-- for me. Using JV's data, .50 seconds strong thumb versus weak thumb, .03 seconds weak thumb versus rack.

Seriously, a P5? If that's your argument I'll happily submit: To all pistol-forum.com members who choose a P5 as their everyday carry and/or home defense pistol, racking the slide on a slidelock reload is ok. For the 99.995% of PF readers who carry something modern with modern ergonomics, no.


I agree. But if the standard is "skilled shooter" and is defined as folks like Enos, Mikulek, Sevigney, etc. the number becomes rather irrelevant.

Again you're putting words in my mouth... something you often scold others for doing to you. I didn't mention Brian, Jerry, or Dave. I didn't define "skilled" at all, as a matter of fact. If you'd like to have that discussion we certainly can, though this thread probably isn't the proper place for it. Nonetheless, I'm willing to bet that most of the people still engaged in self-flaggelation reading this thread understood the distinction I was making even if they didn't know exactly where every single person on earth might fall along the spectrum.


I'd question the idea that the reason to teach the rack is for ease of training. If that was it you could just as easily teach a slide lever release to everyone.

I'm confused, weren't you the one earlier saying that it was easier to get new shooters to be successful racking rather than slide releasin'?


I question the concept, but I'll go out tomorrow and run some splits with different guns and get back with you.

So just to avoid any further complications, I'd suggest drawing from concealment, firing one round on a target between 4" and 8" diameter at 5-7yd, reloading from an empty gun, and then firing at least three more rounds into the same target. Only count times in which all shots hit. This will give a realistic initial grip on the gun (drawing from concealment) and guarantee that after the reload you regained a realistic grip and were in positive control of the gun adequate to make multiple accurate followup shots.


Again I think there is a problem with terms. Is highly skilled the same as reasonably competent?

Now you're just being argumentative.


Again, perhaps it is apples and oranges? 90% of my training and background is for fighting with the firearm, which really doesn't emphasize speed over everything.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "speed over everything" and you know me better than to pretend otherwise. If you're just going to turn this into a rhetoric game, I'll bow out.


And my background is that the slide release is far more likely to be missed, the malfunction rate is higher, and so on. I know that was the belief of Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, and John Farnam, any one of which has probably seen more students than you and I put together. I don't know the doctrine with the M9, but when I was in the military doctrine then was that the 1911 should be racked to release the slide whenever possible, with the reason given that it was less likely to cause a malfunction.

Cooper, Smith, and Farnam taught quite a few things which have been improved upon and generally superseded by modern training. Even Gunsite doesn't teach Cooper's doctrine (in terms of pistol technique) that closely anymore. I cannot speak to what those gentlemen's experiences were with the guns they were seeing. I do know what my experience and the experience of many of my peers is today with the literally thousands of students we collectively see each year.

I cannot even figure out what "malfunction" you can cause by hitting the slide release. Unless you're using "malfunction" to mean the slide going forward prematurely in which case that's solved 100% by using the support hand thumb if you can't get the shooting hand thumb to work properly.


That again assumes it is sub-optimal. As for the entire outcome hinging on it, it seems much like some of my students who are worried they have to make a certain minimal score on the last test to pass. If they had done what needed to be done before then, they wouldn't be in that spot now. To get to this point it means we had to have not solved the problem with a full magazine already, and also have managed to empty a magazine without getting to a position of cover.

So it only matters if someone already made mistakes? Even if that were true -- and it's assuming an awful lot -- so what? People who make mistakes should just give up and die, I suppose. You're the one who proffered a situation in which the speed of the reload was "make or break." If you now want to change the parameters, say so. Don't dodge around it by adding new issues. By the reasoning above, it's the shooter's parents' fault: if they hadn't conceived a child he never would have been in this mess... reload speed means nothing compared to that! :rolleyes:


Again, there is that emphasis on speed. Some might like the gun for other attributes and feel the increased (admittedly a questionable point) reliability or ergonomics makes up for the fractionally slower reload. Lots of folks still choose to carry revolvers for just that reason.

You continually try to rephrase my argument as being "Speed first, nothing else second" while you obviously understand that there are multiple factors that go into selecting a firearm and technique. From my standpoint, you're arguing "everything before speed, speed is meaningless" and that, certainly, is a position with which I'd disagree.

[BaiHu]

If they had done what needed to be done before then, they wouldn't be in that spot now. To get to this point it means we had to have not solved the problem with a full magazine already, and also have managed to empty a magazine without getting to a position of cover.

You need to read this article: http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

From the thread "Well that's one way to come to a decision about caliber...."



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Chuck Whitlock]

This thread has given me something to think about. I have always used the overhand method, as a quasi workaround for the "mechanical" slide release lever. The thought behind this is the old, "anything mechanical can break" thought process, along with muscle memory and the fact that every gun's slide release is a bit different in location, size, ease. Not that it's right, but that was my thinking.

Me, too.....except that as a novice shooter I began using the slide release, first with the strong hand thumb and then got comfy with the support hand thumb (1911/BHP). After changing agencies and going Glock, I bought into the reasoning for racking.

I like having my assumptions/conclusions challenged. Continually exploring the "why" leads you to the "what", and helps to keep one from slipping over the edge into just regurgitating dogma.

[Ed L]

And my background is that the slide release is far more likely to be missed, the malfunction rate is higher, and so on. I know that was the belief of Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, and John Farnam, any one of which has probably seen more students than you and I put together.

A historical sidenote question on this debate: Was Cooper in favor of racking the slide with reloads as opposed to using the slide release, AND, was this always Gunsite doctrine?

The reason I asked is that I took a class in the mid-1980s from an instructor who had just left Gunsite and he taught using the slide release.

So I am wondering if racking the slide over using the slide release was something that has changed over time. Keep in mind Gunsite doctrine was heavily based on the 1911, which has a slide release which is ideal for a right handed shooter to actuate with his left/support hand after he slams a new magazine in on his way to re-establishing his two handed grip.

[GJM]

A historical sidenote question on this debate: Was Cooper in favor of racking the slide with reloads as opposed to using the slide release, AND, was this always Gunsite doctrine?

The reason I asked is that I took a class in the mid-1980s from an instructor who had just left Gunsite and he taught using the slide release.

So I am wondering if racking the slide over using the slide release was something that has changed over time. Keep in mind Gunsite doctrine was heavily based on the 1911, which has a slide release which is ideal for a right handed shooter to actuate with his left/support hand after he slams a new magazine in on his way to re-establishing his two handed grip.

I took my first Gunsite class with Col. Cooper in 1991, and "doctrine" was you didn't run dry -- so neither slide stop nor slide would have been Gunsite doctrine. Buying beer was a penalty for running to slide lock. I know someone who won the shoot off in his class, but did not receive an E ticket, ostensibly because he shot to slide lock in the Fun House.

[Ed L]

I took my first Gunsite class with Col. Cooper in 1991, and "doctrine" was you didn't run dry -- so neither slide stop nor slide would have been Gunsite doctrine.

Thanks. But I am wondering how they taught basic reload techniques in their basic classes. Or did they just teach you to keep doing tactical reloads. I mean how did they teach you to reload for the El Pesidente drill, or did you run it with 7 rounds in the gun so that you would only be doing a tactical reload and not a slidelock reload?

[David Armstrong]

OK, based on the promise of one of my famous home-cooked "Big Country Breakfast" meals in exchange for participation I gathered a small part of Clan Armstrong together this morning for a bit of a Shutzenfest. Shooter A is female and while familiar with firearms has limited shooting experience and training, and her usual carry gun is an S&W 60. Shooter B is male, law enforcement trained and fairly good. He was the 2nd Place shooter at his Basic Academy, is a SWAT member, and while limited in training has a fair amount of experience. Usual carry gun is a Glock Mdl 22. Shooter D is male, old bald fat guy, , grumpy, lots of experience and training. Usually carries a Glock 19 or S&W 442.

We used 4 different guns: a Springfield Armory Custom LW Champion .45 ACP, an S&W 39-2, a Glock 19 and a Walther P5. Test protocol was fire two rounds to slidelock, reload and fire two rounds. Spare magazine was placed on table in front of shooter. 3 strings were fired for each technique and the average of those strings was calculated. Then the shooter's averages were averaged. The 3-gun average is without the P5 as I felt it was enough of an oddball that it might significantly skew the results.

4-gun Avg
Speed 2.17
StrngThmb 2.48
WkThmb 2.43
Sling 2.43
OH 2.41

3-gun Avg
Speed 1.93
StrngThmb 2.19
WkThmb 2.17
Sling 2.21
OH 2.20

My initial conclusions: The type of gun matters more than the technique. Some platforms were more amenable to strong thumb release versus weakhand release, for example. Matching shooter to gun matters. Shooter A consistently found the strong thumb release to be more difficult, thus slower. What you are used to matters. Shooters B and D both did their best times with slide racking Glocks, which is the huge majority of their training both in technique and platform.

[David Armstrong]

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said.
Fair enough, I wasn't sure of the point, that is why I phrased the response in that manner.


You continue to jump back and forth between saying speed isn't an issue and saying that the method you're advocating is "fast enough." I'd submit that to people for whom speed is an issue, "fast enough" isn't fast enough.
I don't think I've ever suggested speed is not an issue, I question whether it is as big an issue as some would suggest, and if so at what point does the difference in speed cease to matter?


Seriously, a P5? If that's your argument I'll happily submit: To all pistol-forum.com members who choose a P5 as their everyday carry and/or home defense pistol, racking the slide on a slidelock reload is ok. For the 99.995% of PF readers who carry something modern with modern ergonomics, no.
Hey now, I love my P5! But I think that is my point. If the argument is that one has to carry a certain type of gun for a technique to matter, then that technique becomes gun specific rather than an issue of general use. There are some guns where the slide release is big and easy to work with, there are others where maybe not so much. I'd suggest that the ability to reach also differs from person to person, thus a general use technique is a better overall tool.


Again you're putting words in my mouth... something you often scold others for doing to you. I didn't mention Brian, Jerry, or Dave. I didn't define "skilled" at all, as a matter of fact.
Whoa now, don't put words in MY mouth. I never said that you mentioned them, I posed the question of if we are going to toss around terms like "skilled shooter" we need to define the term.


I'm confused, weren't you the one earlier saying that it was easier to get new shooters to be successful racking rather than slide releasin'?
Yes, but that is two different issue. You suggested that the reason SIG trained clients in a particular technique was so they would only have to address one technique instead of focusing on individual needs (easy for the instructor). If that is so, any technique could have been selected to be the "one technique to train across the board" and ignores the fact that many others trained the same technique for other stated reasons.


So just to avoid any further complications, I'd suggest drawing from concealment, firing one round on a target between 4" and 8" diameter at 5-7yd, reloading from an empty gun, and then firing at least three more rounds into the same target. Only count times in which all shots hit. This will give a realistic initial grip on the gun (drawing from concealment) and guarantee that after the reload you regained a realistic grip and were in positive control of the gun adequate to make multiple accurate followup shots.
Sorry, already did the shooting before I read this. However, I the protocol I used is adequate for the reload technique issue, IMO.


Now you're just being argumentative.
I disagree. If we are goingthatuse terms like that we need to have some commonality of definitions. I think there is a big difference between highly skilled and reasonably competent, and IIRC you and I have disagreed on what constitutes reasonably competent.


Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "speed over everything" and you know me better than to pretend otherwise. If you're just going to turn this into a rhetoric game, I'll bow out.
To clarify, as I was not apparently as clear as I should have been, I question the importance of the small fraction of a second difference in reloading times based on technique to the eventual outcome of a gunfight. From my perspective of focusing on fighting with the gun that particular issue is fairly far down the list.


Cooper, Smith, and Farnam taught quite a few things which have been improved upon and generally superseded by Thatrn training.
That wasn't my point. My point was that the issue of reliability, which you seem to think is greater based on slide release than rack, seems to be contradicted not only by my experience but by virtually every other instructor I know of. I think that may be based on your training emphasis on speed. I don't know for sure, that is a SWAG on my part, but I'm having difficulty in explaining the contradictory conclusions.

I cannot even figure out what "malfunction" you can cause by hitting the slide release. Unless you're using "malfunction" to mean the slide going forward prematurely in which case that's solved 100% by using the support hand thumb if you can't get the shooting hand thumb to work properly.
The malfunctions are not caused by hitting the slide release, they are caused by using the slide release. That is the difference. One can send the slide forward too soon. One can miss the slide release entirely. The lesser force may not fully seat the round. The slide release may not work with certain magazines. Etc.


So it only matters if someone already made mistakes? Even if that were true -- and it's assuming an awful lot -- so what? People who make mistakes should just give up and die, I suppose. You're the one who proffered a situation in which the speed of the reload was "make or break." If you now want to change the parameters, say so. Don't dodge around it by adding new issues. By the reasoning above, it's the shooter's parents' fault: if they hadn't conceived a child he never would have been in this mess... reload speed means nothing compared to that! :rolleyes:
Come on now, you (should) know better than that. Let's review what I originally said: "For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day." I don't know if it matters or not, whether one has already made a mistake or not. Either way, one makes a choice. Certain choices prior to this choice can impact the importance of that choice or the need for the choice. IMO, the trade-off generally works better one way than another. As for parents, well, if you can find me a person who had the say-so in whether or not they would be born you might have an argument, but until then I'd question the point.


You continually try to rephrase my argument as being "Speed first, nothing else second" while you obviously understand that there are multiple factors that go into selecting a firearm and technique. From my standpoint, you're arguing "everything before speed, speed is meaningless" and that, certainly, is a position with which I'd disagree.
I think I would disagree with both perspective you posted. Perhaps that is the problem?? My argument is what I posted earlier: "For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day."

[David Armstrong]

You need to read this article: http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

From the thread "Well that's one way to come to a decision about caliber...."

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
If you want to argue that the typical CCW needs to carry 145 rounds of ammo with them all the time, go right ahead. Personally, I don't think the idea deserves much comment. Might also note that the officer relaoded while running to cover at one point, so speed was not of the essence and he could have taken a bit more time without changing anything.

[David Armstrong]

A historical sidenote question on this debate: Was Cooper in favor of racking the slide with reloads as opposed to using the slide release, AND, was this always Gunsite doctrine?
Cooper was rather fanatic about not letting the gun run dry at all, but when loading from empty one was to pull the slide back and release it, not use the slide lever. To quote Morrison in "The Modern Technique of the Pistol: " If one should actually do this (shoot the gun dry), the simplest action to take after inserting a fresh magazine is to rack the slide...Using the already programmed slide racking motor skill makes more sense than perfecting yet another manipulative skill."

[LSP972]

Interesting discussion, but I think the horse is well and truly expired. That said, I'll whack him a few times anyway...

As one who was totally immersed in the overhand grasp technique, I used to think it was "superior". And for the average nimrod, it probably is; particularly when said nimrod is using a pistol with a "difficult" slide release, be that due to location (Sig) or size (stock Glock). The big reason we insisted on it during transition training was that it works for everything; slide lock reloads and malfunction clearing techniques, and using the one method exclusively did not confuse the trainees.

That was then, and we had a thousand troopers and DPS guys to bring up-to-speed (and keep there). Now that I'm retired and can go my own way, I have returned to hitting the slide release lever with my off thumb, after seating the fresh magazine. I'm not concerned with the ten-zillionth of a second I might "save" by doing that... its just easier, and I've become lazy in my golden years. The HK levers are perfectly placed for this, are big enough to hit reliably, and long enough to provide sufficient leverage if you make a "light hit". Ditto the Glock "extended" nub release. The stock flat one on those pistols is indeed problematical, as is the Sig's... but I no longer own any Sigs and my Glocks are safe queens.

So, for ME, it works better. I shoot/practice several times a month, sometimes weekly, and shoot to slide lock.

So I guess I fail the doctrinal exam... ;)

.

[BaiHu]

If you want to argue that the typical CCW needs to carry 145 rounds of ammo with them all the time, go right ahead. Personally, I don't think the idea deserves much comment. Might also note that the officer relaoded while running to cover at one point, so speed was not of the essence and he could have taken a bit more time without changing anything.

You love to cherry pick the straw to unravel a cogent argument.

The argument wasn't about 145 rounds, the argument was that when the SHTF, this cop realized that more rounds down range were better than less, speed is of the essence, especially when it comes to reloads and that even the first 11 rounds of the magical .45 were not enough. AND I posted that link b/c of what you said:



Originally Posted by David Armstrong
If they had done what needed to be done before then, they wouldn't be in that spot now. To get to this point it means we had to have not solved the problem with a full magazine already, and also have managed to empty a magazine without getting to a position of cover.

He did hit his assailant multiple times. Job done. He did get to cover. Job done. He did reload. Job done. And yet he still had a baddie in front of him. So at what point is time not of the essence. IMO, it starts being a real important factor and then with each passing moment, it becomes more and more a factor, no?

[David Armstrong]

You love to cherry pick the straw to unravel a cogent argument.

The argument wasn't about 145 rounds, the argument was that when the SHTF, this cop realized that more rounds down range were better than less, speed is of the essence, especially when it comes to reloads and that even the first 11 rounds of the magical .45 were not enough. AND I posted that link b/c of what you said:
I'd question whether
"You need to read this article: http://www.policeone.com/police-hero...mo-on-the-job/
From the thread "Well that's one way to come to a decision about caliber...."
constitutes anything close to a cogent argument. And you might note that speed was NOT of the essence. He had time to reload while moving, reload behind cover, move from location to location, etc. If you can identify a point at which a fraction of a second reload time mattered to the outcome, go for it, I'll wait.:)
In fact, let's see what the officer said: "Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’ ” Looks like he decided that less speed was the way to solve his problem.

[BaiHu]

I'd question whether
"You need to read this article: http://www.policeone.com/police-hero...mo-on-the-job/
From the thread "Well that's one way to come to a decision about caliber...."
constitutes anything close to a cogent argument. And you might note that speed was NOT of the essence. He had time to reload while moving, reload behind cover, move from location to location, etc. If you can identify a point at which a fraction of a second reload time mattered to the outcome, go for it, I'll wait.:)
In fact, let's see what the officer said: "Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’ ” Looks like he decided that less speed was the way to solve his problem.

Just because it might take us 10 minutes to read the article, doesn't mean the action took ten minutes. Total elapsed time of gun fight? 56 seconds.


The whole shootout had lasted 56 seconds, Gramins said.


The assailant had fired 21 rounds from his two handguns


Gramins had discharged 33 rounds. Four remained in his magazine.

54 shots fired b/w the 2 in 56 seconds. Gramins reloaded 2 times and the assailant did a NY reload by switching to a Bersa. So let's give them a super fast 2 second reload each. That's 6 seconds of loading and 54 shots in 50 seconds now. That's 1.08 shots per second, which seems slow except both assailants moved from out of their respective vehicles and into open/covered spaces. So Gramins took his time all right, but he took his time real fast for his 33 rounds where some were obviously aimed since he filled the guy with 14 hits, including 3 hits from behind cover to a man prone under a car...to his face!

Kudos to Gramins.

[BoppaBear]

I'd question whether
"You need to read this article: http://www.policeone.com/police-hero...mo-on-the-job/
From the thread "Well that's one way to come to a decision about caliber...."
constitutes anything close to a cogent argument. And you might note that speed was NOT of the essence. He had time to reload while moving, reload behind cover, move from location to location, etc. If you can identify a point at which a fraction of a second reload time mattered to the outcome, go for it, I'll wait.:)

I have followed this thread for all 8 pages, with the occasional response. I must say that in this thread, and others, you are the most mind-numbingly argumentative person that I've come across in quite some time. I would love to know what credentials/experience you have, that have provided you with this sense that you are the smartest person around. While there is nothing wrong with debating a point/issue, there comes a point in time when the horse is just a mere puddle. I feel that you reached this point several pages ago, but just can't let someone else have the last word.

I end by saying that I have no problems saying that some of what I type is opinion, and some of it is experience, but I'm just medium-speed moderate-drag compared to many here in the forum. If you are a professional and not an enthusiast, then by all means, argue, but be a little less desperate to make yourself come across as better than the other SME's in this forum. It lacks a little class.

[Jay Cunningham]

I think some people should step away from the keyboard for a little while.

[BoppaBear]

I think some people should step away from the keyboard for a little while.


My apologies everyone for being out of line.

[David Armstrong]

Just because it might take us 10 minutes to read the article, doesn't mean the action took ten minutes. Total elapsed time of gun fight? 56 seconds.
"Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’ ” Looks like he decided that less speed was the way to solve his problem. Yes, kudos to the officer for a great job, I'm just failing to see what it has to do with anything under discussion here.

[David Armstrong]

I have followed this thread for all 8 pages, with the occasional response. I must say that in this thread, and others, you are the most mind-numbingly argumentative person that I've come across in quite some time.
Since this comes up occassionally, yes, I do have a nasty habit of not accepting cliches, rejecting emotionalism, demanding proof for claims that conflict with my knowledge, and holding people to what they say which some find argumentative...unlesss they are doing it, of course.

I would love to know what credentials/experience you have, that have provided you with this sense that you are the smartest person around.
I make no claims ot be the smartest person around, but I'm no shrinking violet who just fell off the turnip truck either. Suffice it to say I consider my credentials and experience as good or better than most but the more I learn the more I realize how much more there is to learn.

While there is nothing wrong with debating a point/issue, there comes a point in time when the horse is just a mere puddle. I feel that you reached this point several pages ago, but just can't let someone else have the last word. And yet you choose to complain about the fact that I respond to them rather than the fact that they respond to me. Interesting.

I end by saying that I have no problems saying that some of what I type is opinion, and some of it is experience, but I'm just medium-speed moderate-drag compared to many here in the forum. If you are a professional and not an enthusiast, then by all means, argue, but be a little less desperate to make yourself come across as better than the other SME's in this forum. It lacks a little class.
I might suggest the ultimate lack of class is complaining about someone else lacking class. As for SME's I don't claim to be one, have never asked to be considered as one for this forum, and frankly tend to only worry about being an expert when I'm getting paid to be an expert, at which time I cheerfuly accept the designation by the courts. If you wish to know my background I'm more than happy to provide it to you, but I don't think an open forum is the place for that.

[Jay Cunningham]

David, he already apologized. Just stop. I'm not asking, I'm telling. Back away from the keyboard and do some deep breathing.

To all: anything that even remotely resembles a personal attack going forward is going to result in me slamming you. This means everybody participating.

I state this with utter detachment.

[David Armstrong]

Sorry, I've been feeling like crap for a couple of weeks and the Drs. can't figure it out, been shoving scopes and stuff into me from both ends, doing biopsies for the big C and such, and I think the worry and aggravation slipped out into the forum making my less than charming personality even grumpier than usual. Apologies to any offended.

[BaiHu]

"Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’ ” Looks like he decided that less speed was the way to solve his problem. Yes, kudos to the officer for a great job, I'm just failing to see what it has to do with anything under discussion here.

David,
You're choosing the one piece of dialog that shows that "after the fact" he articulates that he had to slow down. I agree, but how long does that take in your head?
Since the average shot took one second, I'd argue that his aimed shots were fast even after he "settled down" to make 3 proned and aimed shots to the guy's head.
I assume you've shot in competitions, yes? If so, during a minute long course of fire, how much dialog do you have with yourself?
Now, take the time after a course of fire to articulate everything you thought to an audience. Which takes longer?
SouthNarc does this in ECQC and it's an eye opener for anyone who has never been in an altercation.
How much you may forget. How you may get the order wrong. How much you may have totally missed if you tunnel visioned. It's also amazing to know how much you can cram into your head while you're trying to fight.
Speed of action, in my experience, is way faster than articulation of thought during said action.
I think what gets confounded in this conversation is that speed is of utmost importance until your speed becomes a liability and you begin to fumble.
If that's the conversation you want to have, then that would probably be a different thread.
But that's not what the OP was discussing.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Kevin B.]

Again, perhaps it is apples and oranges? 90% of my training and background is for fighting with the firearm, which really doesn't emphasize speed over everything.
99% of my training and background is for fighting with the firearm. The one thing that has been reinforced throughout my training/experience is that the longer the fight goes on, the greater the possibility that I am injured or killed. Speed is not the most important thing in a gunfight, but it is pretty friggin' important and I will take any advantage I can get, even if it is a fraction of a second.


If they had done what needed to be done before then, they wouldn't be in that spot now. To get to this point it means we had to have not solved the problem with a full magazine already, and also have managed to empty a magazine without getting to a position of cover.

That is really a gross oversimplification of what is often a complex problem.

David, I would agree with your assertion that the reloading technique that is fastest often depends on the platform. As I stated earlier, there was a time where I released the slidecwith either my firing hand or support hand thumb dending on the pistol I was using. That said, I do not think I am familiar with any platform where the overhand method is the preferred technique.

[David Armstrong]

David,
You're choosing the one piece of dialog that shows that "after the fact" he articulates that he had to slow down. I agree, but how long does that take in your head?
Since the average shot took one second, I'd argue that his aimed shots were fast even after he "settled down" to make 3 proned and aimed shots to the guy's head.
I take him at his word when he said he slowed down. I've done it myself during shootings. My point is simple, and I wish folks would quit trying to make it something it is not. Speed is not always paramount, there are times when doing something slower is the best way, and often the speed difference doesn't matter.

But that's not what the OP was discussing.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I agree, nothing about the officer shooting has any bearing on the discussion IMO. The OP was discussing "My thinking is given the rather low probability of having to make a slide lock reload with a high cap pistol outside of drills or games, the highest reliability method of dealing with a for real slide lock reload might be use my support thumb, or slingshot (my choice)/ overhand the slide?" My point, again is that choosing one of those alternatives is appropriate. I have posted times from a small cross section of shooters indicating the time difference is a small fraction of a second, and discussed the fact that multiple instructors over time have taught the slide rack for a number of good reasons.

[David Armstrong]

99% of my training and background is for fighting with the firearm. The one thing that has been reinforced throughout my training/experience is that the longer the fight goes on, the greater the possibility that I am injured or killed. Speed is not the most important thing in a gunfight, but it is pretty friggin' important and I will take any advantage I can get, even if it is a fraction of a second.
So will I. The question becomes if that fraction of a second actually provides any advantage.

That is really a gross oversimplification of what is often a complex problem.
Sure, but often complex problems can be best solved with simple solutions.

David, I would agree with your assertion that the reloading technique that is fastest often depends on the platform. As I stated earlier, there was a time where I released the slidecwith either my firing hand or support hand thumb dending on the pistol I was using. That said, I do not think I am familiar with any platform where the overhand method is the preferred technique.
I think it is a combination...platform, person, and other. Overhand has been taught at several of the schools I've attended because of reasons previously given.

[Surf]

Been outta town for a bit, so I am attempting to come into this thread a bit late and really can't quote everything that I might want to give an opinion on, however here are a few....


I have experimented with pre-loading the slide stop on the Glock and P30 and never found that satisfactory.

Using my dominant thumb, the problem would be if the insertion was bobbled, I could get the timing wrong. When shooting the Glock before, I had to train my dominant thumb to stay still until the mag was fully seated. I had that squared away.

This afternoon that training was obviously forgotten. :)

That got me thinking about whether an alternative solution, that would be a tad slower but less subject to timing, might be a strategy to consider.My first comment here would be that reliability of any technique should be #1. However speed should be considered a close second. I will also add that correct training on a proper technique is the key to success on anything. Which will lead me to add that I do not personally chose to teach nor do I actually pre-load the slide stop with the shooting hands thumb. I have personally run into dynamic situations or witness students under same conditions jar the weapon prematurely prior to fully seating the magazine and sending the slide forward on an empty chamber. Instead I teach to reference the shooting hands thumb just above the release against the slide without making contact with the slide stop. I only teach to hit the slide stop after the magazine is inserted. I train students to place the pistol in slide lock and reference their thumb above the slide stop against the slide. I have them insert the magazine working up to a forceful insertion. The slide should not release at any time. After repetitions of only performing this, I then include the conscious thought of releasing the slide stop only after that full magazine insertion. With time it becomes a subconscious act with correct timing and high degrees of reliability / repeatability as any other technique. On a very efficient and fluid shooter it will virtually look identical to pre-loading the slide stop, but definitely is not and has increased reliability.


For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day.This is definitely shooter dependent in my mind. If it works well for you in regards to your training, limitations and / or abilities, press on. Those that I teach are predominantly wearing gloves. For this limiting factor the overhand release becomes much more reliable and is the default technique trained and utilized. Just to be sure that I am not against pre-loading for those who can nail it every time, but have created a way to do it for those who need more reliability but keep the same benefit of speed.




The idea is to have your thumb in the right place but not actually press down with enough pressure to drop the slide (or even get close).

It's different than folks who autoforward the slide by slamming the magazine in very hard. When you preload the slide release you should get the same result even if you simulate a reload without actually having a magazine to go in the gun. It's the motion of the gun away from your support hand palm that trips the lever.

If your strong hand thumb isn't really in a position to retard the slide release's motion upward, or if your thumb is relaxed and allows the slide stop to move with the rest of the gun, the slide won't drop.I am definitely not a proponent of auto-forwarding and concur there. I will note that I often see those who preload the slide perhaps get the initial insertion of the mag and first round hung up on the magwell and jar the weapon hard enough to trip the preloaded slide stop. Therefore I try to keep new people learning this higher up referencing the slide with thumb contact. As they get progress their skills they might have more success and understand the amount of pressure on or around the slide stop that they can place on it.


Quick War Story:

One of my guys insisted on using the overhand method to release the slide on his M-9. The potential to activate the slide-mounted safety using this technique was discussed and he dismissed it. He considered it a training issue.

The time came for him to execute a reload in a "stressful situation" and he inadvertently placed his M-9 on safe. When he went to re-engage his target, dead trigger. Sweep, Tap, rack (using the overhand method), no bang. Repeat. Same result. One would have thought, the live rounds being ejected might have been a clue...

Fortunately, things worked out. He now uses the slide release.

FWIW, I bounce between Glocks, 1911s, the M-9, and the occasional SIG and have not had a problem using the slide release.Therein lies his problem, he was trained improperly on his immediate action for this pistol which would be, sweep, roll/tap, rack. Yes I have inserted the roll into the equation and placed it as one movement combined as roll/tap. I also teach a slingshot method (not overhand) where the shooter will grasp the slide with the thumb and forefinger underneath the safety or decocking levers when working the slide. It is a pretty natural way of grasping the slide when using the slingshot.


When you were switching thumbs dependent on which gun you were using, did you ever get mixed up? What kind of transition training (even if it was just a few minutes of familiarization handling) did you need to go from a R-thumb gun to a L-thumb gun, so to speak?

While it's slower, using the support hand thumb is definitely more universal than the strong hand thumb and as I tell folks in class, I can't criticize someone who chooses to use that method over pre-loading with the strong thumb as long as they understand the pros and cons.I know this was asked of KB, I will throw out what I do. I train with a lot of variations because of a varied student base however I predominantly see the Sig, Glock, Beretta, 1911, HK and 5906 as the main players. I like to be able to run all of them well for obvious reasons. For myself, I am generally right on the money when I pick one up, probably due to the amount of repetition between the weapons. I will however take a few minutes to myself at the onset of a training or teaching day and do a quick handling and manipulation of the weapons being utilized. However if I do have a brain fart at any time of the day, I go straight into an overhand release. This is 99.9% decided that I am having a mental moment at the time I am going for a mag. So it looks as if I planned to do the overhand release from the start and would not have lost any time if that was my default movement. I will also note that I have run times on video and have "double clutched" the slide stop as a release with the primary shooting hands thumb and I am still faster than having gone straight to another technique. I might do this when quickly switching from the Glock to the Sig and vise versa.


The problem with that is most folks don't have a really solid slidelock loading technique.


And in mine it is absolutely correct. Again, we tend to train very different types of people these days, which often explains the different viewpoints, IMO. I've seen far more problems with the slide release than with the rack, and my experience is that it is often quite a bit slower for newer shooters. As so often happens, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, the trick is knowing how to minimize the disadvantages while maximizing the advantages.


And I can only ask why is it that this multitude of problems just doesn't seem to happen anywhere else in the world? I've been to a lot of places and I know I've been out of the loop for a while, but when entire countries build a training program around something and that same something is taught at some of the highest level private training academies, I just have to question the idea that it is particularly problematic. I know you were at SIG after I had any classes from them, for example, but my SIG class taught while both were acceptable the racking was preferred and recommend.

Agreed. To me the universality is more for clearance issues, malfunction drills, and commonality of training across platforms....you don't have to re-learn wheres and hows if you change guns. As you said, "Hitting the slide release is a coordinated, specific act that benefits from familiarization and habituation. Move the slide release a little bit or just change its shape/angle (going from stock to Vickers to extended on a Glock for example) can change the speed and reliability of the technique until it's trained." Folks that will devote the time and effort of gaining the familiarization and habituation for a specific platform can probably benefit from the slide release. Others, maybe not so much.David the commonality between platforms and the standardization of varying manipulations to share similar movements is valid. However as skill levels increase a shooter can gain efficacy by finding areas in which they may increase efficiency and their overall speed of manipulations that will translate into an overall higher level of performance while retaining reliability. This can apply to any shooter, no matter their genre of shooting. Sure it does add more pieces to a puzzle but there are definitely those types that have more on board RAM space available.


I'd have to go out and put it on the timer these days, but I think that is sort of my point. When one practices a lot the numbers get to be distorted. I spent years training almost exclusively with the rack, and when I was on the line with others I'd consistently get the reload shot off faster than those who were using the slide stop. What I was referring to were my students...normal, low-speed non-dedicated shooters who are getting their CHL, taking their first class, shoot maybe 100 rounds a year, and so on. To me, thta is what matters. A really good C3 shooter, for example, can due the full presentation in under 1 second. But because a really good shooter who proctices a lot can do it does that mean when we talk about C3 carry we focus him, or do we focus on the more normal shooter?


And I would expect that to be the exception rather than the norm.I know JV referenced my own results from a thread over at m4carbine which comes from one of my video's and I definitely state that I try to remain proficient at all of those types of methods of release. I also state that there will be more than likely be much different results from newer shooters. I think I am a decent shooter but in a total time of ~ 2 seconds, I am a good 25% faster with one technique that is just as reliable as any other technique that I use. If we glean one point from the data, there is a definite consistent difference shown in my times. Keeping this in mind it might suggest that we as instructors may at some point in time try to evolve our shooters in a certain direction. I often tell people and I think I even say that in a video or two of mine, "What I teach, is not always what I do". This is not an arrogant do as I say, not as I do thing, but keeping students level of knowledge and skill sets in mind they may need to progress their learning curve in a certain manner. Of course I will always attempt to perform in the manner that I am teaching to my students, but if they look at my video's or watch me train outside of class they see different things.

I will generally start with a baseline or simplified technique, evaluate and foster or teach accordingly to the students needs, skills limitations and / or abilities. Definitely one shoe size does not fit all here. Yes we can teach to the lowest common denominator and standardize everything across the board, but if you want students to break out into high or extreme levels of performance we need to be able to take their mindset, manipulations and tactics beyond cookie cutter methodology. Again this is definitely speaking outside of your average CCWer.


I don't understand why a trained shooter can't use the fastest method and transition to the slingshot method if needed. To me, this is the training equivalent of wearing body armor with bug out bag to the beach. It's not like dropping the slide release fails most of the shooters on this forum in any measurable percentage, right?I agree that a trained or skilled shooter should have no issues with it.


That's what they taught while I was there, too. I discussed it at length with two different senior people at the Academy over the five years I worked for SIG and both of them gave the same answer: the primary reason they taught racking was because it was the same technique regardless of whether you're right- or left-handed. SIG always maintained that all the primary controls (or literally all the controls on DAO/DAK guns) were "ambidextrous." They did this by pretending the slide release lever didn't exist and instructing people to rack instead.

To the best of my knowledge, no one who ever shot competitively for SIG used the slide racking method. None of them were left-handed, either.

I was just at the Sig Academy for the past 2 weeks. Did their Master Shooting Instructor for pistol, rifle and shotgun, plus I did their armorer course. Also did a train the trainer session and I will now be doing adjunct work with Sig covering my area, but mostly my focus will remain Local, State, Federal LE and Military needs. I will note that Sig is adopting a stance that if it works for you, go with it attitude. They have adopted a "performance based" vs an "outcome based" mindset when it comes to training. They are trying have a KISS approach to things in an attempt to simplify the teaching and performance process. However they obviously call it SIG not KISS, as in Simple Is Good. This is not new or cutting edge methodology that they created but rather an adoption of certain principles that are gaining more mainstream acceptance.


I don't believe this is true. I was a "racker" for many, many years and for the past nine months or so I've been using the support thumb on my 1911. Having tried both the support thumb and the rack, there is no question whatsoever that when we're talking about the time it takes to put an accurate shot on a target with a good enough grip that you've got proper control for followup shots racking the slide is substantially slower. The difference between strong and weak thumb is less than the difference between weak thumb and racking.

I am much faster with a 1911 style slide stop than the Glock or Sig type of stop when it comes to my support thumb.

That has not been my experience. As I said earlier, people I've seen who are highly skilled at racking are still substantially (by my standards) slower than people who are equally skilled using the slide release.

I agree here completely.

By definition, if as you say "that fraction of a second makes or breaks you" then I would say it most certainly is my biggest concern because the entire outcome hinges on it. How often that happens is certainly unknowable and thus eternally debatable but when it matters, it matters. And regardless, whether it is the make-or-break issue, whoever won a fight by having a slower reload? I just don't see the argument in favor of doing it a sub-optimal way.

Just a thought that I have always remembered from 23+ years ago in my initial academy firearms training. An FBI study took how long gunfights lasted, distances, shots fired etc, and it was noted that on average the bad guy fired a shot every .25 seconds. So every quarter of a second you could shave off your performance (not just reload specific) your odds of survival increased. Or every extra quarter of a second you took gave your opponent a free attempt at ending your life. If I can be faster / more efficient with something and be just as reliable, I am gonna do it.



So if I go time a couple of shooters and their gaps are not so big, what will that prove???
It might show their own strengths and weakness, but in my opinion it will give a savvy instructor a lot of information and where to work from there with the individual.


OK, based on the promise of one of my famous home-cooked "Big Country Breakfast" meals in exchange for participation I gathered a small part of Clan Armstrong together this morning for a bit of a Shutzenfest.....

My initial conclusions: The type of gun matters more than the technique. Some platforms were more amenable to strong thumb release versus weakhand release, for example. Matching shooter to gun matters. Shooter A consistently found the strong thumb release to be more difficult, thus slower. What you are used to matters. Shooters B and D both did their best times with slide racking Glocks, which is the huge majority of their training both in technique and platform.This is a big conclusion and good weapon selection is huge. Indeed some platforms might be more ergonomically correct for a different technique. Lets take a 1911 as an example. I cannot do a primary thumb release, however a support thumb release is still a good bit quicker than an overhand release. This is only but one aspect in my decision making process, now I need to weigh other factors in my selection.


99% of my training and background is for fighting with the firearm. The one thing that has been reinforced throughout my training/experience is that the longer the fight goes on, the greater the possibility that I am injured or killed. Speed is not the most important thing in a gunfight, but it is pretty friggin' important and I will take any advantage I can get, even if it is a fraction of a second.


I abide by this 100%. Speed is not everything but is a huge factor in the equation. Often times speed is not emphasized enough, however there are definitely damaging ways or much better ways of developing a shooters speed. Sometimes speed is so under-emphasized that I wonder how some might ever wish to win a fight. I always use a visual example to my students that stresses the importance of speed. I emphasize this by saying that if myself and another instructor are just as accurate and just as competent in tactics as one another, the person who is more efficient or who has more speed will have a large advantage in winning the fight. I have a visual demo to hammer this point home.


So will I. The question becomes if that fraction of a second actually provides any advantage.
The question should be, does that fraction of a second provide any disadvantages?

Sure, but often complex problems can be best solved with simple solutions.
Then that is a training and shooter issue. The shooter should understand this. If you have progressed them correctly they will be able to divert fluidly to a more simplified approach when necessary.

I think it is a combination...platform, person, and other. Overhand has been taught at several of the schools I've attended because of reasons previously given.
There are definitely many factors in play and none should be ignored or discounted. However we should not do what law enforcement loves to do and many other training facilities are just as guilty and that is being stagnant or not open to new techniques. I am not talking about adopting the newest, latest, whizbang technique or tool, but always look to make marked improvements in what we do.

[ToddG]

Just a thought that I have always remembered from 23+ years ago in my initial academy firearms training. An FBI study took how long gunfights lasted, distances, shots fired etc, and it was noted that on average the bad guy fired a shot every .25 seconds. So every quarter of a second you could shave off your performance (not just reload specific) your odds of survival increased. Or every extra quarter of a second you took gave your opponent a free attempt at ending your life. If I can be faster / more efficient with something and be just as reliable, I am gonna do it.

Yup. That has been a foundation of what I teach for as long as I can remember and something I bring up very specifically in every class. Gaining 0.02s on a split probably isn't worth a hundred hours of practice on the range, but improving your draw or reload by a few quarters of a second means fewer bullets coming your way.

I was very surprised at your experience with pre-loading the slide release. I've never seen that particular problem. A fairly large federal agency has adopted it, as well, and last I spoke with their head instructor they weren't seeing any problems in training, qualification, FOF, or operationally either. I can definitely see how a blow from the right angle with enough force could cause the slide to drop prematurely, though. As for inducing stoppages, that's harder for me to understand simply because I haven't witnessed that from tons of students using the technique with many different types of guns.

The flip side is that when using the strong thumb without pre-loading, I've seen people mis-time it and drop the slide early many times. It's the most common criticism of the technique in my experience and the main reason why a lot of instructors teach using the support thumb instead. I'd be very interested to see how you're teaching it that doesn't result in people mis-timing it.

As for SIG Academy, congrats on the gig. The "Simple Is Good" thing began about ten years ago when then-director of marketing Laura Burgess tried making it part of our advertising campaign. It met with resistance from folks who were subsequently all sent looking for other jobs, but not before Laura had left the company. George Harris, who was with SIG forever and whose last job was running the Academy, embraced the "Simple Is Good" slogan from day one and used it at the Academy even after the rest of the company threw it aside.

I understand the idea of being performance- rather than technique-based, but given the level of many SIG Academy students they have to be teaching something as a default for folks who haven't already developed strong technique. Is that default still the overhand rack?

[David Armstrong]

from Surf:
This is definitely shooter dependent in my mind. If it works well for you in regards to your training, limitations and / or abilities, press on. Those that I teach are predominantly wearing gloves. For this limiting factor the overhand release becomes much more reliable and is the default technique trained and utilized. Just to be sure that I am not against pre-loading for those who can nail it every time, but have created a way to do it for those who need more reliability but keep the same benefit of speed.
Sure, it is shooter dependent. I think that is always a big part of any technique. I'd say it is also platform dependent, as you say later. My daughter is a good example of many of my female clients, they consistently have trouble with stronghand thumb release. Can it be fixed? Sure, but given the fact that there is a good default (rack) for most shooters I doubt the investment is worth the result.

Keeping this in mind it might suggest that we as instructors may at some point in time try to evolve our shooters in a certain direction.
No doubt. The question becomes then what direction? I would certainly push some techniques, tactics, ideas, beliefs, etc. based on what my research and experience has shown me is important to winning a fight. That might be (actually was) very different than the stuff pushed to help win an Action Pistol match, or a PPC contest.

It might show their own strengths and weakness, but in my opinion it will give a savvy instructor a lot of information and where to work from there with the individual.
Right, it tells us something about the individual. It doesn't tell us much about a technique, which was my point, because of the factors around the individual, the platform, etc.

The question should be, does that fraction of a second provide any disadvantages?
I would disagree. There is always going to be a balance of cost versus benefit. That fraction of a second does not come without a cost, be it training time, platform selection, experience, and so on. So we know there is a cost. Thus to me the question needs to revolve more around the issue of advantage...what do we gain....and is the gain worth the investment of resources. I see your point, I prefer to come at the point from the other direction. Seems to clarify things better for me.

There are definitely many factors in play and none should be ignored or discounted. However we should not do what law enforcement loves to do and many other training facilities are just as guilty and that is being stagnant or not open to new techniques. I am not talking about adopting the newest, latest, whizbang technique or tool, but always look to make marked improvements in what we do.
Again, no real disagreement, and certainly we should not do what has been done just because that is what has been done. On the other hand, if there is a reason for something being done, I don't think we should discard it automatically just because something new has come along that may provide some small improvement for some small segment.

[BoppaBear]

So I did some dry reloads today, using my support hand to actuate the slide release. I can see how it would be quicker, but my question to those of you shooting HKs is what part of your support hand do you use?

I was trying to just continue the motion from inserting mag, without adding a separate step to hit the slide release, and letting my support hand fall where it typically would in the thumbs forward grip. I was using more force and making sure meaty part of my support hand thumb (really the heel) hit the release instead of just the usual graze. Although the meaty/lower part of my support hand thumb tends to ride the slide release normally, the contact does not put enough downward pressure on it to keep the slide from locking. This is a new manipulation for me, so not all of the 20 or so reps had the desired result. I would want to try some live, to make sure that I am not leaving any more of my support hand on the slide release than normal, which would cause the slide to not lock back.

[cosine]

What slide stop techniques can be used for lefties shooting pistols that aren't 100% ambidextrous, such as Glocks? I've always used my support hand to give the slide a backward tug after a reload simply because the slide stop isn't on the same side as my strong-hand thumb.

[Jay Cunningham]

What slide stop techniques can be used for lefties shooting pistols that aren't 100% ambidextrous, such as Glocks? I've always used my support hand to give the slide a backward tug after a reload simply because the slide stop isn't on the same side as my strong-hand thumb.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

Some guys install the factory extended slide release and actuate it with their support hand social finger.

[TCinVA]

The extended Glock factory slide release works well with the left trigger finger as well, at least with my anatomy.

[ToddG]

I'm a big fan of reaching underneath the gun and using whatever finger is most appropriate to actuate the slide release.

It can be difficult with a typical SIG but for Glocks and just about any gun with a slide release as far forward or moreso it works pretty well. I've had a substantial percentage of left-handed students agree that as weird as it feels at first, after two days of practice it's pretty quick and happens subconsciously.

[Surf]

Yup. That has been a foundation of what I teach for as long as I can remember and something I bring up very specifically in every class. Gaining 0.02s on a split probably isn't worth a hundred hours of practice on the range, but improving your draw or reload by a few quarters of a second means fewer bullets coming your way.

Agree completely. Splits really is not the place to make up big advantages in time. Eliminating all the excess wasted movements and working on efficiency with the movements / techniques is where you get faster. Trigger speeds and split times, I admit are really really really splitting hairs.

I was very surprised at your experience with pre-loading the slide release. I've never seen that particular problem. A fairly large federal agency has adopted it, as well, and last I spoke with their head instructor they weren't seeing any problems in training, qualification, FOF, or operationally either. I can definitely see how a blow from the right angle with enough force could cause the slide to drop prematurely, though. As for inducing stoppages, that's harder for me to understand simply because I haven't witnessed that from tons of students using the technique with many different types of guns.

Failures are not as commonly seen on flat range training that does not include a lot of stress. However in dynamic shooting situations I tend to see more failures with slide back in battery prematurely or double clutching the slide stop. I will clarify that the following is how I generally introduce people into using the slide stop as a technique. I teach them to use a distinct reference with the primary shooting hands thumb above the slide stop and making contact with the slide. This leads into a more consistent downward sweep in hitting the stop and release of the slide. It also cuts down on forwarding of the slide prematurely. Might sound like over thinking it as many don't have an issue, but there are those who will not be consistent with hitting the slide stop if they just allow their thumb to hover in space near the stop. These same individuals who hover the thumb and miss the stop also tend to be the same types who pre-load the stop get more failures to chamber a round. The fix that I have found is the distinct reference above the stop, thumb making contact with the slide. Like anything else as their skill or own personal preference may dictate that they may naturally gravitate to their own technique and even eventually pre-load the stop because of what experience and repetition has taught them.

The flip side is that when using the strong thumb without pre-loading, I've seen people mis-time it and drop the slide early many times. It's the most common criticism of the technique in my experience and the main reason why a lot of instructors teach using the support thumb instead. I'd be very interested to see how you're teaching it that doesn't result in people mis-timing it.

Agreed and as mentioned above the direct reference above the stop making contact with the slide is what I have found to fix it. Almost immediately after doing several dry reps and then into live fire. I will have the student reference the thumb against the slide and just do mag insertions on lockback. Normal and hard. The slide should NOT release. I then progress them into mag insertion and then the conscious thought to sweep the thumb down. Of course with time, this becomes more subconscious but IMO is more reliable for the harder types. Some keep it and it works with great success and some eventually work into referencing on the stop itself. For myself and as can be seen in my videos, I do not pre-load the slide stop in the idea that the mag insertion pushes the weapon up into the thumb and releasing the slide. I must still press downward to release the slide.

As for SIG Academy, congrats on the gig. The "Simple Is Good" thing began about ten years ago when then-director of marketing Laura Burgess tried making it part of our advertising campaign. It met with resistance from folks who were subsequently all sent looking for other jobs, but not before Laura had left the company. George Harris, who was with SIG forever and whose last job was running the Academy, embraced the "Simple Is Good" slogan from day one and used it at the Academy even after the rest of the company threw it aside.

I understand the idea of being performance- rather than technique-based, but given the level of many SIG Academy students they have to be teaching something as a default for folks who haven't already developed strong technique. Is that default still the overhand rack?

You are correct in that they are still talking in teaching terms / techniques in regards to newer shooters. The majority of the class (21 students) only 2-3 did not really belong in a "Master" level instructor course, so for myself and many others, nothing was mind boggling new, just Sig Sauer imparting their teaching beliefs onto Sig certified "Master" instructors. Pretty much the norm for any outfit. Yes they teach the overhand release but have a "use what works" philosophy. This was quite apparent in their rifle course where they just took a class the week prior with Pat Mac and are now infusing the safety manipulation on the rifle during reloads. They did not state this is where it came from, but anyone who knows Pat Mac's style understands where Sig got it from just the weekend prior. I don't get the idea they were hiding who/where they learned it from however. This was a "we want you to try it and use it during the course, but what you decide to use later is up to you" kinda thing. Many tried it, tossed it for the remainder of the course and it was not harped on.

I will note that they do have challenging qualification courses of fire. Out of 21 in the pistol, only 6 of us passed and on the rifle only 8 or 9 of us passed. In reality even though it was challenging as far as a qual course goes, it really becomes more of a performance under stress issue for many guys. They need more inoculation to shooting under stress.

[JHC]

Is the Sig Academy pistol qual available online?

[Slavex]

I rely on either the slide going forward on it's own or my support hand thumb hitting the release if the slide doesn't. I know, I know, bad gamer. And many years ago after making the statement on Beretta Forum, that my slide ALWAYS goes forward on it's own after a mag is inserted, ToddG called me out, the very next match I attended, it didn't and I stood there like a moron looking at my slide. After what felt like minutes I hit the release with my strong side thumb (Beretta Elite II, I could reach it with my thumb). Humbled, I started actually paying attention to what the hell was going on during a reload a little more. Once I moved to the CZ platform, my strong hand thumb just wouldn't reach the slide release, so I had to use my weak hand thumb as I reestablished my grip. But, only if the slide didn't go forward on it's own. Which is rare enough that, yeah, it slows me down when it doesn't. It's not that I am purposely hammering the mag in super hard to achieve it, that's not needed, a firm insertion results in the action.
Using my Beretta or a Glock and the preload method, with many hours spent on it, resulted in enough failure that I felt it wasn't for me. Maybe my thumb is just too clumsy or I'm slow, but I could never get it to work right. Lots of slides dropped too early. In the instances where the slide fails to go forward on it's own with those guns, again a rare circumstance although the Glock does it more than my Berettas, I find no issue with the strong hand thumb hitting the release after the mag is inserted. I've never mistimed that, yet. Mag goes in, thumb hits release support hand comes up from the bottom of the gun and reestablishes grip as gun goes forward. Now having read that people do mistime that a lot, I expect to be infected with similar malfunctions the next time those guns hit the range with me.
I DO NOT teach or advocate the auto release method in class though, I teach using the thumbs, whichever can reach, or the reach under for lefties if their trigger finger won't do it, or overhand, or slingshot, never ever do I tell people to trust the auto forward. Were I to be less of a gamer and more of a self defense guy, and I carried a pistol daily, I'd likely carry one I could reach the release with my strong hand thumb, and I'd focus on using it. But I'm not and I don't.

[David Armstrong]

What slide stop techniques can be used for lefties shooting pistols that aren't 100% ambidextrous, such as Glocks? I've always used my support hand to give the slide a backward tug after a reload simply because the slide stop isn't on the same side as my strong-hand thumb.
That is one of the reasons I like the slide rack as the release method. It works across multiple platforms and works for pretty much all shooters.

[jthhapkido]

That is one of the reasons I like the slide rack as the release method. It works across multiple platforms and works for pretty much all shooters.

So you are saying it is easier for you to teach?


Several people have said in earlier posts that using the slide stop doesn't work well with Glocks, and that left-handed shooters have more trouble with this, etc...and yet, I'm a left-handed shooter who uses a Glock, and using my trigger finger works perfectly well. Indeed, I put the factory extended slide stop lever on the gun (that was a whopping $3) and actuating the slide stop is perfectly reliable--or at least, just as reliable as using the rack technique instead.

It is significantly faster for me to do so. That was easily and obviously demonstrated because I racked the slide for years, and when I switched to using my trigger finger on the slide stop, within 10 minutes my reload-to-first-shot was already measurably (on the timer) faster. And no, we aren't talking 0.02 seconds or some other statistically insignificant value. My slidelock reload currently is barely slower than my in-battery reload (mostly because my finger needs to move from a weird angle back down the frame, which just takes a little longer if I need a very precise shot).

I have a young female friend who also shoots a Glock. She is right handed, has tiny hands, and has also put the extended slide stop lever on her gun. And she also is measurably faster (and just as consistent) with using her strong-hand thumb to release the slide compared to an overhand rack.

Now, if someone has a gun where the slide is stiff and binds the slide stop, or their hand size doesn't work on their gun so their strong-hand thumb doesn't reach, then obviously this isn't an optimal choice. (Though they should try the weak-hand thumb version.) On the other hand, they probably have other issues with that weapon also, so finding one that works better for them might be a good idea before working further. I do note that everyone I know who has switched from an overhand rack to using the slide stop as a release has reduced their reload-to-shot time significantly (in terms of that "0.25 seconds per shot from the other guy" standard) which, while not the number of students that other people here have seen (being instructors who teach a lots of classes), nonetheless involves over 15 random people in the last year.

Odd that all of them showed an important and significant decrease in time. With just the same reliability as previous slide-lock reloads.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Opinions certainly do.

That all being said---I don't happen to know anyone who hasn't increased their slidelock-reload-to-shot speed by getting away from the overhand rack. And that increase in speed has corresponded to a statistically significant (using the above standard) decrease in time in every single case.

Nothing wrong with an overhand rack. But arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because the the overhand rack is just as fast simply isn't true according to a very, very large statistical sample. And arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because the overhand rack is better for a plethora of platforms doesn't make much sense unless you are going on Top Shot (season 5 coming up! Woo!) or expect to manage battlefield pickups all over the place.

AND, arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because it causes more malfunctions than the overhand rack----needs some research citations to back that one up.

[David Armstrong]

So you are saying it is easier for you to teach?
No. In fact, the off-hand thumb is probably the easiest to teach just looking at the mechanics. I'm saying the rack has enough advantages that it has become the default in so may places for a reason, one of them being it is usable across multiple platforms by pretty much all shooters.


Nothing wrong with an overhand rack. But arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because the the overhand rack is just as fast simply isn't true according to a very, very large statistical sample. And arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because the overhand rack is better for a plethora of platforms doesn't make much sense unless you are going on Top Shot (season 5 coming up! Woo!) or expect to manage battlefield pickups all over the place.
I'm not sure anyone does that. The argument, as I understand it, is that the slide stop may be faster in some areas, the rack may be faster in others, based on a number of factors. And given that many shooters change platforms over the years having one default that covers all platforms makes pretty good sense.


AND, arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because it causes more malfunctions than the overhand rack----needs some research citations to back that one up.
I'd argue the other way around. If you want to argue the slide stop is as reliable you need to provide something to support that.

[jthhapkido]

I'd argue the other way around. If you want to argue the slide stop is as reliable you need to provide something to support that.

I'm actually going to ignore the other parts, simply because over the course of this thread, you have changed the stated situation multiple times to match whatever specific example supported your purpose.

However, the above was in response to what I said, which was;

AND, arguing that the slide stop shouldn't be used because it causes more malfunctions than the overhand rack----needs some research citations to back that one up.

The reason I said that was that you said:

I don't know the doctrine with the M9, but when I was in the military doctrine then was that the 1911 should be racked to release the slide whenever possible, with the reason given that it was less likely to cause a malfunction.


My point was that the issue of reliability, which you seem to think is greater based on slide release than rack, seems to be contradicted not only by my experience but by virtually every other instructor I know of.


The malfunctions are not caused by hitting the slide release, they are caused by using the slide release. That is the difference. One can send the slide forward too soon. One can miss the slide release entirely. The lesser force may not fully seat the round. The slide release may not work with certain magazines. Etc.


My argument is what I posted earlier: "For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day."

I could quote more, but I'm pretty sure that is sufficient. You say that using the slide stop as a release is more likely to cause a malfunction. This claim is a major part of your argument. You also say that the military and "virtually every other instructor I know of" agrees, and give specific types of malfunctions.

Great. Now---do you have any data at all showing this is actually an issue? You made the claim, you get to back it up. I haven't made a claim---I have questioned your claim.

So, please supply data supporting your contention that using the slide stop as a release contributes to more malfunctions. Not "can" contribute---actually does.

[David Armstrong]

I could quote more, but I'm pretty sure that is sufficient. You say that using the slide stop as a release is more likely to cause a malfunction. This claim is a major part of your argument. You also say that the military and "virtually every other instructor I know of" agrees, and give specific types of malfunctions.

Great. Now---do you have any data at all showing this is actually an issue?
Yes and no. No, I don't have actual quantitative data. I don't sit around at ranges and count malfs, I'm not sure anyone else does. That is why I did not post quantitative data. What I posted is known as qualitative data, data based on general experiences and accepted histories from those who are believed to have knowledge of the topic. To that end I have cited the beliefs of folks like Cooper, Smith, and Farnam, among others. Glock Instructor School taught the rack as more reliable when I went through it. I will assume that those folks are accurate in their claims unless someone can provide a modicul of evidence to counter their observations. FWIW, when it comes to providing proofs, traditionally the person who is challenging the status quo has the obligation to show the proof that the challenge is valid. Given that historically the rack has been taught as most reliable, given the large number of instructors who teach that it is the most reliable, and that the rack most closely resembles the actual normal functioning of the fiream within its designed parameters, the onus is on those who would claim another method is more reliable.

[GJM]

David, Col. Cooper taught that you should not run dry at any cost. Subsequently, Gunsite and several other circa 1990's trainers taught using the slide with an overhand motion, as a "gross motor skill."

If you are going to make the argument that overhanding the slide is the preferred and most common technique, it seems only fair to cite which instructors and what their reasoning is.

I can tell you that of Bill Rogers, Robert Vogel, Manny Bragg and Todd Green, to name those I have trained with in the last year, none teach overhanding the slide as a preferred technique.

[jthhapkido]

Yes and no. No, I don't have actual quantitative data.

That's rather what I thought. So, with all of your commentary about how you prefer to deal with logic, reason, and facts, and not emotional reactions or personal opinions----you don't actually have any data. Okay.


I don't sit around at ranges and count malfs, I'm not sure anyone else does. That is why I did not post quantitative data. What I posted is known as qualitative data, data based on general experiences and accepted histories from those who are believed to have knowledge of the topic.

Actually, I suggest you check the meaning of qualitative data, because "hearsay" and "anecdote" do not equate to qualitative data.


To that end I have cited the beliefs of folks like Cooper, Smith, and Farnam, among others. Glock Instructor School taught the rack as more reliable when I went through it. I will assume that those folks are accurate in their claims unless someone can provide a modicul of evidence to counter their observations.

If these folks actually kept data on malfunctions with slide stop usage, and compared it to data on overhand rack malfunctions, then what they say is worth listening to. Without it---what we have is hearsay and anecdotes from people. And as has been shown time and time again in studies, people's personal opinions cause attention to things that coincide with their beliefs, and lack of attention to things that are against their beliefs, leading to anecdotes that merely support the personal opinion of the viewer.

Hence, the requirement of actual data.

Without data, your contention has no support. (I note also numerous people have already refuted your opinion that Cooper believed that using the slide stop as a release created more malfunctions than using the overhand rack, so even the contention that their "observations" support your point is erroneous.)



FWIW, when it comes to providing proofs, traditionally the person who is challenging the status quo has the obligation to show the proof that the challenge is valid.

No. This has never been true. So, I suggest in the future you switch "FWIW" into "IMO." (In science, at least, we don't do it that way.)

When someone makes a claim, that person has the obligation to support that claim. If the claim is the "status quo" then either 1) it should be incredibly simple to support that claim, or 2) the "status quo" is false.

You made a claim. You have no data to back that claim. As such, your contention of a reliability difference between using the slide stop and using the overhand rack, in terms of malfunction, is unsupported, and purely your opinion. It may also be the opinion of others. However, having several people agree with you (no matter what their names) is still not actually support.


Given that historically the rack has been taught as most reliable, given the large number of instructors who teach that it is the most reliable, and that the rack most closely resembles the actual normal functioning of the fiream within its designed parameters, the onus is on those who would claim another method is more reliable.

No. It isn't. And considering that for many years, shooting one-handed was taught as the most reliable, and given the large number of instructors who taught it that as the most reliable, and that one-handed shooting most closely fits the shape of the firearm itself, the onus is----oh wait. It doesn't work that way.

It doesn't matter how many people have taught it. Or how long it has been taught. And saying that it "most closely resembles the actual normal functions of the firearm within its designed parameters" is not only humorous, but incorrect as a tiny movement of the slide stop allows the slide to move forward, just as it is designed to do, AND the slide stop being OUT of the way is actually more "normal" in terms of how the handgun normally can be found.

None of that matters.

Many people teach lots of things that are flat-out wrong. Having more people teach such things wouldn't turn them into "right." Many people have similar opinions about things---that are flat-out factually incorrect. Having even more people believing those opinions would not change fact.

You say that using the slide stop leads to more malfunctions. You have no data to support this contention.

You make the claim, you cannot support the claim, therefore the claim is merely your opinion, and should be thus given the respect that your opinion deserves.

[JHC]

David, Col. Cooper taught that you should not run dry at any cost. Subsequently, Gunsite and several other circa 1990's trainers taught using the slide with an overhand motion, as a "gross motor skill."

If you are going to make the argument that overhanding the slide is the preferred and most common technique, it seems only fair to cite which instructors and what their reasoning is.

I can tell you that of Bill Rogers, Robert Vogel, Manny Bragg and Todd Green, to name those I have trained with in the last year, none teach overhanding the slide as a preferred technique.

Nor USPSA GM and SF combat vet Frank Proctor.

[ToddG]

While I disagree with David's assertion about which method is more reliable, I have to say that I'm in the same boat as he: my experience tells me that people are more likely to foul up racking the slide than hitting the slide release, but like him I have no quantitative data to prove it. That wouldn't keep me from telling people that the slide rack is more prone to user-induced stoppages.

[GJM]

I believe that is part of why Jeff Cooper was so adamant about not running the pistol empty -- ANY method is less reliable/slower/more prone to being screwed up than a slide forward reload. With hi cap pistols largely having displaced single stack pistols in common use,it seems like it should be easier to keep the pistol with BB's on board.

[jthhapkido]

While I disagree with David's assertion about which method is more reliable, I have to say that I'm in the same boat as he: my experience tells me that people are more likely to foul up racking the slide than hitting the slide release, but like him I have no quantitative data to prove it. That wouldn't keep me from telling people that the slide rack is more prone to user-induced stoppages.

Ah, but would you say "I have seen more..." or "I think that..." as opposed to David's assertion that "This IS true..."?

Significant difference.

For example, I personally believe that for most people, the most common mistake when using the slide stop is prematurely dropping the slide. That's what I've seen the most. I don't call that a malfunction, more like a shooter screw-up, but it is something that occurs to people who are first learning that technique. That's my personal opinion, stated as such, and I'd bet that is the most common seen by everyone--but I wouldn't say that it IS the most common seen by everyone.

I would also say that other than that (which is simply a poor technique issue, and that goes away with proper practice and technique), the data I have (taken on the timer but only for a small sample of less than 25 people over the last two years) says that people using the slide rack technique are measurably slower than people who move to using the slide stop as a release. (Every single person who has learned it and tried it for comparison in my classes, has saved time in amounts that correspond to more than one shot from the bad guy, according to Bill Rogers.) And these are all people who were used to the slide rack technique, so we are comparing people with experience in one technique, to people who have just learned another--and the second technique was measurably better within 10 minutes of learning it.

Now---that data is a small sample, localized to this area, and was taken in classes devoted strictly to shooting skills. As such, I wouldn't attempt to generalize that to all situations and all people.

So my comment on it would say that here's what I've seen. (Just as I'm pretty sure yours would, also.) This is very different from saying "this is the status quo, therefore it is true, and you have to prove differently even though I have no data but merely personal observations to back it up."

[David Armstrong]

That's rather what I thought. So, with all of your commentary about how you prefer to deal with logic, reason, and facts, and not emotional reactions or personal opinions----you don't actually have any data. Okay.
No. I said I did not have quantitative data. I do have qualitative data. That is quite different than no data.


Actually, I suggest you check the meaning of qualitative data, because "hearsay" and "anecdote" do not equate to qualitative data.
Actually, as a trained sociologist with an extensive research backgraound I'm quite familiar with those terms. You are correct, hearsay and anecdote to not equal qualitative data. Since I did not present hearsay or anecdote as qualitative data, however, I'm not sure why you would try to raise the issue.


If these folks actually kept data on malfunctions with slide stop usage, and compared it to data on overhand rack malfunctions, then what they say is worth listening to.
To each their own, I guess. If you think that what Jeff Cooper, John Farnam, Clint Smith and other say isn't worth listening to, that is your choice. I tend to listen to all points of view and keep an open mind. I think that what Todd says is worth listening to even though he didn't provide any numerical data. I think it sort of telling that of all the claims tossed around on this topic you would choose mine to be the only one to argue about.


Hence, the requirement of actual data.
Again, qualitative data is data, and has been considered acceptable for centuries, whether you agree with it or not.


Without data, your contention has no support. (I note also numerous people have already refuted your opinion that Cooper believed that using the slide stop as a release created more malfunctions than using the overhand rack, so even the contention that their "observations" support your point is erroneous.)
Apparently I missed that. Could you cut and paste the relevant statement?


No. This has never been true. So, I suggest in the future you switch "FWIW" into "IMO." (In science, at least, we don't do it that way.)
When someone makes a claim, that person has the obligation to support that claim. If the claim is the "status quo" then either 1) it should be incredibly simple to support that claim, or 2) the "status quo" is false.
Sorry, but all rules of discussion start with the challenge to the norm needs to be supported. In the social sciences, at least, we do it that way.


You made a claim. You have no data to back that claim. As such, your contention of a reliability difference between using the slide stop and using the overhand rack, in terms of malfunction, is unsupported, and purely your opinion. It may also be the opinion of others. However, having several people agree with you (no matter what their names) is still not actually support.
Again, I have data. It is qualitative instead of quantitative. But it is still considered a valid and acceptable method of data collection. And, again contrary to your claim, having several people WHO HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE ISSUE UNDER QUESTION is considered supportive of a position.


No. It isn't. And considering that for many years, shooting one-handed was taught as the most reliable, and given the large number of instructors who taught it that as the most reliable, and that one-handed shooting most closely fits the shape of the firearm itself, the onus is----oh wait. It doesn't work that way.
I'm not aware of anyone who taught one-handed shooting as being more reliable. I've heard a number of reasons to shoot one-handed, but reliability isn't one of them. Perhaps you could supply some support to your claim by identifying some noted instructors or shooters who have said that?


It doesn't matter how many people have taught it. Or how long it has been taught. And saying that it "most closely resembles the actual normal functions of the firearm within its designed parameters" is not only humorous, but incorrect as a tiny movement of the slide stop allows the slide to move forward, just as it is designed to do, AND the slide stop being OUT of the way is actually more "normal" in terms of how the handgun normally can be found.
If it doesn't matter then why do you feel a need to argue against it? But again, it does matter. And having the slide pulled back all the way and then released DOES more closely duuplicate the normal function of the firearm, as the slide lever release does not compress the springs fully.


Many people teach lots of things that are flat-out wrong. Having more people teach such things wouldn't turn them into "right." Many people have similar opinions about things---that are flat-out factually incorrect. Having even more people believing those opinions would not change fact.
Agreed. But that is not what has happened here. What we have here is an on-going history of numerous highly experienced people who have observed the same actions and come to a common conclusion.


You say that using the slide stop leads to more malfunctions. You have no data to support this contention.
Again, although you may not like it because uit doesn't fit your own belief system, I have data. It is qualitative in nature. If you wish to argue that the data is wrong that is one thing. If you wish to argue that qualitative data is not appropriate to this discussion, that is another thing. But to continue to claim there is no data is blatantly false.


You make the claim, you cannot support the claim, therefore the claim is merely your opinion, and should be thus given the respect that your opinion deserves.
Again, the claim is supported. You may not like the support, but the support is there, and given that the support reflects the views of others it clearly goes beyond "merely your opinion".

[David Armstrong]

David, Col. Cooper taught that you should not run dry at any cost. Subsequently, Gunsite and several other circa 1990's trainers taught using the slide with an overhand motion, as a "gross motor skill."

If you are going to make the argument that overhanding the slide is the preferred and most common technique, it seems only fair to cite which instructors and what their reasoning is.

I can tell you that of Bill Rogers, Robert Vogel, Manny Bragg and Todd Green, to name those I have trained with in the last year, none teach overhanding the slide as a preferred technique.
I'm aware of what Cooper taught. And Cooper taught that while you should not run dry at any cost (IIRC running dry required buying a round of drinks/case of beer for the class later) he also taught that one should use the slide rack to release the slide whenever the slide was back, as was quoited earlier from Morrison's book. Reliability was one of those reasons. As for who teaches what, I think I cited a number of instructors and schools that did teach slide rack and the reasoning when I was aware of it. I don't know everyone who teaches and their reasoning for things, but I'm not sure we should take everyone who teaches as being particularly worthwhile when it comes to their reasons. I could keep tossing in names, folks like Matt Siebert, Paul Howe, Gabe Suarez, Bill Jeans and others that advocate the rack for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure that others advocate a different method for other reasons. Some folks focus on getting the smallest fraction of speed out of a method, others fcus on reliability, other advocate commonality, and so on. I just relate what I have observed and heard over my 30+ years of firearms training and teaching. I've learned doctrine from instructors in the US military, Brtish SAS, Israeli IDF, Russian militia and a host of private trainers and there seem to be some distinct commonalities there. I think the commonalities are there for a reason. That reason may or may not be applicable to a particular individual, a particular firearm, a particular goal, or a particular situation. But I'm not sure talking about particularities is that relevant outside of the particularity.

[David Armstrong]

Ah, but would you say "I have seen more..." or "I think that..." as opposed to David's assertion that "This IS true..."?

Significant difference.
THAT is your big gripe??? Good grief:
"I don't know the doctrine with the M9, but when I was in the military doctrine then was that the 1911 should be racked to release the slide whenever possible, with the reason given that it was less likely to cause a malfunction."

"My point was that the issue of reliability, which you seem to think is greater based on slide release than rack, seems to be contradicted not only by my experience but by virtually every other instructor I know of."

"My argument is what I posted earlier: "For reliability and inter-operability, slingshot/overhand slide retraction and release is hard to beat, IMO. You might lose a small fraction of a second of speed, but I'll make that trade-off all day."

:confused::confused:

[David Armstrong]

While I disagree with David's assertion about which method is more reliable, I have to say that I'm in the same boat as he: my experience tells me that people are more likely to foul up racking the slide than hitting the slide release, but like him I have no quantitative data to prove it. That wouldn't keep me from telling people that the slide rack is more prone to user-induced stoppages.
Right. And it would be considered experiential, not anecdotal. Interestingly, I don't doubt your experience or belief at all. I think it is quite probably a difference in why/how the training is focused. Since I've known you, you have been focused on wringing out the fastest way to get a round downrange. My focus has always been on fast enough but reliability over all. Heck, I run NY1s in my Glocks because they are less likely to break than the normal "S" spring. I know it is a bit slower and may even cost a bit in marskmanship, but the benefit outweighs the cost in my book.

[jthhapkido]

Apparently, quoting takes out what I originally wrote, and merely leaves in the latest part. However, in this case, that is sufficient.


No. I said I did not have quantitative data. I do have qualitative data. That is quite different than no data.

No. If you think random observations, taken but not recorded, based on personal opinions and discussions, equate to qualitative data---then you are simply wrong.

Completely wrong. There are a number of well-known logical fallacies that are actually BASED on the concepts that people's recollections are incredibly biased, and how remembered observations rarely actually reflect reality.

Qualitative data is something completely different from remembered collections of anecdotes.



Actually, as a trained sociologist with an extensive research backgraound I'm quite familiar with those terms. You are correct, hearsay and anecdote to not equal qualitative data. Since I did not present hearsay or anecdote as qualitative data, however, I'm not sure why you would try to raise the issue.

And yet, you did. Hearsay/anecdote = commentary from people regarding what they have seen. Now, if any of those people have actually kept track of both malfunctions with slide stops and malfunctions with slide racks, that might be different---but that isn't what you said.


To each their own, I guess. If you think that what Jeff Cooper, John Farnam, Clint Smith and other say isn't worth listening to, that is your choice.

As usual, you attempt to put words in another person's mouth. As I said nothing of the sort, I suggest you stop doing so in any further attempt to distract people from the point at hand, in which you demonstrate that "data" isn't something you understand.


I tend to listen to all points of view and keep an open mind. I think that what Todd says is worth listening to even though he didn't provide any numerical data. I think it sort of telling that of all the claims tossed around on this topic you would choose mine to be the only one to argue about.

Sentence 1: irrelevant, except you are attempting to insinuate that I'm not
Sentence 2: irrelevant to our discussion
Sentence 3: also irrelevant to our discussion, though I'll answer:

Throughout this thread, you have continually misrepresented what other people have said, and also continually attempted to change the situation when the current one didn't support your contentions. As I'm interested in actual facts, and more importantly, making sure that incorrect facts are not presented, it seemed to me that requiring you to actually produce facts to support your contention was important.

You have none, so that pretty much did what I needed.



Again, qualitative data is data, and has been considered acceptable for centuries, whether you agree with it or not.


Indeed it is, though obviously not as useful as quantitative data. However, again, opinions from experts, while useful as a general guideline, and occasionally useful in court (though since both sides have their own pet experts who disagree, which tells you the value of expert opinions), do not qualify as actual data.

Hearsay and anecdotes are not qualitative data.


Sorry, but all rules of discussion start with the challenge to the norm needs to be supported. In the social sciences, at least, we do it that way.

That seems unlikely, since the social science don't do it that way. Neither does it occur that way in any other science. Easy to see this, actually---in any research article, when a claim is made, even if it is the most commonly accepted one, the author of the article provides citations supporting the claim. This is how science works.

You make the claim, you have to support the claim. Status quo in science means nothing---OTHER than there should be significant amounts of support data for it, so support for it should be simple.

I suggest that if you are indeed someone familiar with research in sociology, either your publications are very bad, you actually do provide support for your claims in your research but don't want to have to admit that here, or you have a partner who goes in and adds all of the actual research to your research before it is published.


Again, I have data. It is qualitative instead of quantitative. But it is still considered a valid and acceptable method of data collection. And, again contrary to your claim, having several people WHO HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE ISSUE UNDER QUESTION is considered supportive of a position.

Really? And yet---no. "Extensive experience" is not data. This, by the way, is called argument by authority, and is a common logical fallacy, which you apparently think no one else could possibly know about.

Experience (unless documented and comparative), hearsay, anecdotes---these things are observations that lead to actually doing research on something. They, however, are not even remotely logical support for anything.

Not even in the social sciences.



I'm not aware of anyone who taught one-handed shooting as being more reliable. I've heard a number of reasons to shoot one-handed, but reliability isn't one of them. Perhaps you could supply some support to your claim by identifying some noted instructors or shooters who have said that?

Hm. Ever heard of a guy called "Applegate"?



If it doesn't matter then why do you feel a need to argue against it? But again, it does matter. And having the slide pulled back all the way and then released DOES more closely duuplicate the normal function of the firearm, as the slide lever release does not compress the springs fully.

So, other that it theoretically being an issue, do you have any data of it actually being an issue? No? Just stories from people who have seen it once or twice? But haven't paid any attention to malfunctions with slide-racking, because that was all just shooter error?



Agreed. But that is not what has happened here. What we have here is an on-going history of numerous highly experienced people who have observed the same actions and come to a common conclusion.

Really? Or just a bunch of people who all taught the same thing and made comments about how the other method wouldn't work because of theoretical issues?

After all, we know quite clearly that the "gross motor control" story was nonsense. So, conclusions based on that are nonsense...which just goes to show that just because someone with experience believes something, doesn't make it true.



Again, although you may not like it because uit doesn't fit your own belief system, I have data. It is qualitative in nature. If you wish to argue that the data is wrong that is one thing. If you wish to argue that qualitative data is not appropriate to this discussion, that is another thing. But to continue to claim there is no data is blatantly false.

Qualitative data would be interesting, though probably wouldn't help in this case, as your contention is that slide stop reloads cause more issues than slide rack reloads--as such, to support your point would require actual comparative data, and thus, quantitative data.

However, again, your "support" is not data, and would be rejected by any scientific journal (except, I suppose, JAMA since they'll accept anything).



Again, the claim is supported. You may not like the support, but the support is there, and given that the support reflects the views of others it clearly goes beyond "merely your opinion".

If you think that "reflects the view of others" is support or if you think having experts in the field agreeing somehow equates to viable logical support and research data---then we don't really have anything further to discuss. Whether or not one method is indeed more likely to create malfunctions than the other, you have no actual logical support for your contention, and your insistence that you do makes it quite clear that you really do not know what you are talking about. Literally. That isn't a character criticism---many people don't know how to think logically, do logical research, or logically support an argument with data.

I thank you for making it so clear.

[David Armstrong]

[quote]No. If you think random observations, taken but not recorded, based on personal opinions and discussions, equate to qualitative data---then you are simply wrong.
If that had happened I would agree. However given that the observations are not random, etc. they can and do rise to the level of qualitative data. It is a method of data collection that has been used for decades in the social sciences.


Qualitative data is something completely different from remembered collections of anecdotes.
Agreed. As we don't have a simple "remembered collection of anecdotes" however the point is rather moot.


And yet, you did. Hearsay/anecdote = commentary from people regarding what they have seen. Now, if any of those people have actually kept track of both malfunctions with slide stops and malfunctions with slide racks, that might be different---but that isn't what you said.
Again, your lack of understanding of what constitutes qualitative research and data does not indicate a lack on my part.


As usual, you attempt to put words in another person's mouth. As I said nothing of the sort, I suggest you stop doing so in any further attempt to distract people from the point at hand, in which you demonstrate that "data" isn't something you understand.
You said: "If these folks actually kept data on malfunctions with slide stop usage, and compared it to data on overhand rack malfunctions, then what they say is worth listening to. " Your words, not mine. As for who knows what data is I'll be glad to put my Ph.D. education and publications up against pretty much anyone else here.


Throughout this thread, you have continually misrepresented what other people have said, and also continually attempted to change the situation when the current one didn't support your contentions.
Nice claim, but I would suggest you are completely wrong, just as you were with the rather absurd claim of "as opposed to David's assertion that "This IS true..."? It seems YOU are the one who is misrepresenting what others have said.

As I'm interested in actual facts, and more importantly, making sure that incorrect facts are not presented, it seemed to me that requiring you to actually produce facts to support your contention was important.
Again, the qualitative research and data I have offered supports my position. If you have something to disagree with the position perhaps you could present it instead of trying to waste all this time trying to attack me.


Indeed it is, though obviously not as useful as quantitative data. However, again, opinions from experts, while useful as a general guideline, and occasionally useful in court (though since both sides have their own pet experts who disagree, which tells you the value of expert opinions), do not qualify as actual data.
Gee, you started out so good, then fell apart. Yes, qualitative data is not as useful as quantitative data in many instances. But it does qualify as data. It is a broader, more general form of data, defined as items of information.


Hearsay and anecdotes are not qualitative data.
As we have agreed on that I don't know why you keep bringing it up. If you wish to argue what I have offered does not qualify as qualitative data it might be nice if you would present something to support that other than repeating the same irrelevant comments.


That seems unlikely, since the social science don't do it that way. Neither does it occur that way in any other science. Easy to see this, actually---in any research article, when a claim is made, even if it is the most commonly accepted one, the author of the article provides citations supporting the claim. This is how science works.
Actually the social sciences do work that way. Not always, of course, as there are several different types of research and theory development. And if this was an academic journal I might do that citation thing. As it is I have just mentioned some sources, which is pretty standard for discussions here and elsewhere on the internet.


You make the claim, you have to support the claim. Status quo in science means nothing---OTHER than there should be significant amounts of support data for it, so support for it should be simple.
I have supported the claim. I have offered qualitative data to support a position that has also historically been the status quo. I again note that you have done nothing to counter that.


I suggest that if you are indeed someone familiar with research in sociology, either your publications are very bad, you actually do provide support for your claims in your research but don't want to have to admit that here, or you have a partner who goes in and adds all of the actual research to your research before it is published.
I will point out again that rather than discuss something of substance, such as some of my publications, you have instead again chosen to attempt a personal attack.


Really? And yet---no. "Extensive experience" is not data. This, by the way, is called argument by authority, and is a common logical fallacy, which you apparently think no one else could possibly know about.
Now who is trying to put words in somene else's mouth?? I didn't say it was data, I said it supported my position. By the way, it is actually known as argument FROM authority, not BY, and while it can be a logical fallacy when used incorrectly it is also considered a strong inductive argument when used correctly, as I have done. As to what I think, unless you have developed the ability to read my mind I'll just sort of chuckle at such statements.


Experience (unless documented and comparative), hearsay, anecdotes---these things are observations that lead to actually doing research on something. They, however, are not even remotely logical support for anything.
Not even in the social sciences.
Sorry, but you are, again, partly right and partly wrong.


Hm. Ever heard of a guy called "Applegate"?
Yes. Had the chance to hear him speak a few times over the years. AFAIK while advocating the use of the gun one-handed he never claimed it increased reliability. Perhaps you could direct us to someplace where he made that claim?


So, other that it theoretically being an issue, do you have any data of it actually being an issue? No? Just stories from people who have seen it once or twice? But haven't paid any attention to malfunctions with slide-racking, because that was all just shooter error?
Again, I have presented qualitative support for the position. I have not said anything about how often it was seen or shooter error , however, so again it seems you are making things up.


Really? Or just a bunch of people who all taught the same thing and made comments about how the other method wouldn't work because of theoretical issues?
Unlike you I cannot read peoples minds, so I cannnot say why they taught what they taught or said what they said. I can only comment on what they actually taught and what they actually said.


After all, we know quite clearly that the "gross motor control" story was nonsense. So, conclusions based on that are nonsense...which just goes to show that just because someone with experience believes something, doesn't make it true.
Actually we don't know that the gross motor control story was nonsense. We do know that there are competing theories about gross motor control with strong supporters on each side with competing elements of research. So claiming it is nonsense at this time, I would suggest, is just, well, nonsense.


Qualitative data would be interesting, though probably wouldn't help in this case, as your contention is that slide stop reloads cause more issues than slide rack reloads--as such, to support your point would require actual comparative data, and thus, quantitative data.
A nice opinion, but one that is contradicted by common sense and traditional research issues. You seem to be, in essence, saying that until we have an actual side by side test with numerical analysis, we cannot say that women are more likely than men to get pregnant.


However, again, your "support" is not data, and would be rejected by any scientific journal (except, I suppose, JAMA since they'll accept anything).
As this is not a scientific journal your argument seems to be more of a strawman than anything else. I have not claimed it would be accepted by a scientific journal, and again it seems to be of a level comparable to what is offered by most others here. If your complaint is that the forum does not have enough scientific rigor I'd suggest you take it up with Todd. Outside of that, it is rather irrelevant.


If you think that "reflects the view of others" is support or if you think having experts in the field agreeing somehow equates to viable logical support and research data---then we don't really have anything further to discuss.
I thought we reached that point a while back when you indicated you did not understand what qualitative data was and how it is used. But I'll be glad to continue to play as long as you want, or as long as the mods allow.

Whether or not one method is indeed more likely to create malfunctions than the other, you have no actual logical support for your contention, and your insistence that you do makes it quite clear that you really do not know what you are talking about. Literally. That isn't a character criticism---many people don't know how to think logically, do logical research, or logically support an argument with data.
Yes, you have demonstrated that quite clearly. It would be nice if you could actually challenge the position other than parrot over and over that what I have said doesn't really mean what I have said, but I'm quite familiar with the axiom of "if you can't challenge what is being said challenge the person saying it."

[joshs]

Please return the discussion to the benefits of or problems with using the slide stop. If you would like to continue to discuss data collection methods for observed malfunctions, please start another thread. Also, remember that while attacking the valididty of another member's posts is acceptable, personal attacks on members are strictly prohibited by the CoC (http://pistol-forum.com/misc.php?do=showrules).

[David Armstrong]

Removed assorted definitions of terms regarding data collection.

[Rchen404]

Here's what Larry Vickers has to say (from another forum).

What do you all think? just stick with the two methods (weak thumb or slingshot)? If I remember, time diff was minimal? He does seem to be addressing the non-expert shooters...

"The technique I like the least is slide stop release by the strong hand thumb ( for most pistols being used by a right hander) - the reason is many/ most shooters leave the thumb in the immediate vicinity of the slide stop instead of moving it away while finalizing the grip after a slide lock reload- this in many cases prevents the slide from locking to the rear when empty or, potentially even worse, bumps the slide stop up into the locked position with ammo remaining in the magazine- I have seen this many times- so much so I specifically recommend against releasing the slide with the strong hand thumb and tell shooters to use the support hand thumb release techinque or sling shot only after a slide lock reload"

[David Armstrong]

Larry has a tendency to know what he is talking about, IME.

[Rchen404]

South narc aka craig douglas finds slingshot acceptable, not sure if it's his preferred method. Doees anyone know?

[SouthNarc]

South narc aka craig douglas finds slingshot acceptable, not sure if it's his preferred method. Doees anyone know?

I prefer the slide release/stop but I really don't care what people use in ECQC as that's not the focus of the course.

[Rchen404]

I prefer the slide release/stop but I really don't care what people use in ECQC as that's not the focus of the course.

Craig, any preference using support or shooting hand thumb?

I took the ecqc course last year, highly recommended.

[ToddG]

It's certainly true that if someone fails to establish a proper grip after a reload, problems may ensue. It could be failure to lockback (if you run out of ammo on your second magazine without having relaxed your grip once, and have a third to reload to go to). I suppose it could also result in premature lockbacks though I can't recall seeing that with any frequency. The bigger problem in my experience is that an improper grip after the reload tends to diminish speed & accuracy.

Verifying proper grip on the gun before extending out from the reload position is a worthwhile step IMHO.

[SouthNarc]

Craig, any preference using support or shooting hand thumb?

I took the ecqc course last year, highly recommended.

I remember you dude, and thanks!

I learned early on strong hand and have to use strong hand anyway because I had the left thumb severed and reattached without the tendon being so. So....I guess that makes me half monkey with only one opposable thumb.

[FailureDrill]

I'm a big fan of reaching underneath the gun and using whatever finger is most appropriate to actuate the slide release.

It can be difficult with a typical SIG but for Glocks and just about any gun with a slide release as far forward or moreso it works pretty well. I've had a substantial percentage of left-handed students agree that as weird as it feels at first, after two days of practice it's pretty quick and happens subconsciously.

As a lefty, I had never considered doing this before. I typically did the slingshot method because rocking my left index finger back to hit the slide release was akward with my long fingers. I tried a few dry runs and realized that my right hand middle finger ends up awfully close to the slidestop as I reload and activating it is not a big deal. The only issue was the relatively flat surface of the stock slidestop. I might replace it with a Vickers or similar for some more purchase. I'm going to start dryfiring this technique a lot and determine the results. Anecdotely it feels faster and alleviates the timing issue.

Thanks for the info.

[ToddG]

Thanks for the info.

It's not my invention. I first saw it demonstrated by Larry Vickers back in '03 or '04.