/THREAD
:cool:
Printable View
Which is why I said it's not one or the other, but both: the Indian and the arrow. You could give a pig the best gun in the world and it probably wouldn't be any better a shooter than if you gave it, uh, no gun at all. But top level competitors don't customize their guns just for the fun of it... they try to wring performance out of the gun that wouldn't be there otherwise.
And if Sevigny or Vogel were there shooting that same local match with their favorite gear, Robbie would feel disadvantaged.. rightfully so. Leatham's skill compared to the typical club shooter is enough to overcome the equipment disadvantage, but compared to someone who's also at the top of the game? No.Quote:
But I wouldn't be surprised if Leatham et al went to a local IPSC match and scored fairly well using a High Point.
Phrased the way you did ("substantially"), I'd say probably not. By the same token, if you asked, "If you didn't practice for six months would you be substantially impaired," I'd also say probably not in terms of typical DGUs. But the reason I practice so much -- and the reason why I choose the guns I do -- is in large part about wanting to be prepared for something worse than a "typical DGU." All you have to do is look at Tom Givens's database and you see a ridiculous range of problems that just the people who've trained at his one school have faced. From point blank range to 25+ yards across the street, from single opponents to small armies, there's a whole host of people who haven't been in a gunfight that totaled 3.4 rounds.Quote:
Sure you have your preferences, but do you really think that were you to get into a shooting incident that your chances of survival would be substantially impaired carrying any of the guns you've worn over the last decade, assuming the reliability bugs had been worked out on all of them?
I wouldn't disagree with that, but again I think it misses the point. The fraction of second difference between times for top shooters and such may make a difference for a match, but in the real world I just haven't seen it make a difference if you can get your shot off in .98 seconds as opposed to .97 seconds, or if your group measured 1" as opposed 1.1".
Again I would question the practical difference there, particularly as it relates to the craftsman/tool issue.Quote:
And if Sevigny or Vogel were there shooting that same local match with their favorite gear, Robbie would feel disadvantaged.. rightfully so. Leatham's skill compared to the typical club shooter is enough to overcome the equipment disadvantage, but compared to someone who's also at the top of the game? No.
And I doubt that you find many, if any, of those fights where the equipment made that much of a difference among CCW holders assuming as always any quality, reliable make. But tha tbrings us back to the ever-present issue....is there really that much difference between the shooter who is prepared for 99.99% of the situations and the shooter who is prepared for 99.995%? Nobody can be prepared for everything, all selections are a compromise, TANSTAFL, etc. Heck, I suppose we could argue about if it is truly point-blank range the Taurus Judge with buckshot becomes a great choice, and if it is a single assailant at 50 yard the TC Contender with a scope become a great choice and if there is a huge horde the PMR 30 becomes a great choice. But given that we don't know those things in advance it seems pretty much ANY quality handgun becomes a reasonable choice for general personal defense. There are reasons small, compact, low-capacity handguns seem to be rather successful in the personal defense world. A larger gun may make a difference just as a smaller gun may make a difference, one caliber may make a difference one time and another caliber the difference the next time, an auto may make the difference one time and a revolver the next. Given that one can't predict that in advance I just don't understand the reasoning behind objecting to ANY choice that meets certain basic parameters, particularly when it has a fairly good record of success behind it.Quote:
Phrased the way you did ("substantially"), I'd say probably not. By the same token, if you asked, "If you didn't practice for six months would you be substantially impaired," I'd also say probably not in terms of typical DGUs. But the reason I practice so much -- and the reason why I choose the guns I do -- is in large part about wanting to be prepared for something worse than a "typical DGU." All you have to do is look at Tom Givens's database and you see a ridiculous range of problems that just the people who've trained at his one school have faced. From point blank range to 25+ yards across the street, from single opponents to small armies, there's a whole host of people who haven't been in a gunfight that totaled 3.4 rounds.
My wife was perusing Boston pictures tonight, and thinks she spotted a PF member. He is the guy in the basketball shorts, obviously wearing the lounge around revolver. She was pretty sure he wasn't Jody, but couldn't be sure.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...ps02ca4ec2.jpg
No way. That guy is way too tall to be Jody. :p
Well, kinda...A real craftsman will be able to make due with the tools at hand, but sub par equipment would never be his first choice.
Game, set, match. As a craftsman who relies on his tools to feed his family, I demand the very best at all times. Sure, you could give me a shop full of Grizzly Industrial machinery and a tool box full of Kobalt stuff from Lowe's and I could build you a beautiful kitchen, but rest assured it would not be faster, easier, nor would it be very efficient.
I actually do wear gym shorts around the house on occasion and still manage to carry a full size pistol. I much prefer cargo shorts though for the ability to wear a belt.