More shotgun advice from the NRA

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Scientific test of best gun for women from one of the NRA magazines:

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...ding-to-women/


A knowledgeable opinion on the article:

https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...n-in-your-life

A good resource on firearms for women: https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...n-in-your-life

Also, went to a talk by Vicki Farnam about male views of women's guns (she didn't have much use for them, in general). After going over the basics, some guy had a hissy fit that his 'woman' didn't appreciate the compact Kimber 1911 that he bought her without testing. She straightened him out.

What is it with some of the articles lately? We have people doing really good testing and with much piratical experience.

[revchuck38]

What is it with some of the articles lately? We have people doing really good testing and with much piratical experience.

Arrrr, matey, ye be right!

[joshs]

Scientific test of best gun for women from one of the NRA magazines:

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...ding-to-women/


A knowledgeable opinion on the article:

https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...n-in-your-life

A good resource on firearms for women: https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...n-in-your-life

Also, went to a talk by Vicki Farnam about male views of women's guns (she didn't have much use for them, in general). After going over the basics, some guy had a hissy fit that his 'woman' didn't appreciate the compact Kimber 1911 that he bought her without testing. She straightened him out.

What is it with some of the articles lately? We have people doing really good testing and with much piratical experience.

The article you linked to isn't from "lately." It's from 2013. I think the article illustrates that inexperienced shooters, whether men or women, will pick firearms based on different criteria than experienced shooters. Also, the general point that the article makes, (small frame revolvers are terrible first handguns) seems like good advice to me.

[GardoneVT]

Scientific test of best gun for women from one of the NRA magazines:

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...ding-to-women/


A knowledgeable opinion on the article:

https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...n-in-your-life

A good resource on firearms for women: https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...n-in-your-life

Also, went to a talk by Vicki Farnam about male views of women's guns (she didn't have much use for them, in general). After going over the basics, some guy had a hissy fit that his 'woman' didn't appreciate the compact Kimber 1911 that he bought her without testing. She straightened him out.

What is it with some of the articles lately? We have people doing really good testing and with much piratical experience.

The relevance of the experience depends on one factor- that the user actually shoots the gun in question.

Most range patrons I’ve met were going shooting as a social exercise, done every X number of months or quarters. When you shoot 100 rounds a year or less even a grossly uncomfortable gun isn’t awful. But shoot 250 rounds in one sitting for a class or comp event, suddenly that macho looking .45 Auto subcompact isn’t so neat.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So it was crappy in 2013. I'm sorry.

[BillSWPA]

The article you linked to isn't from "lately." It's from 2013. I think the article illustrates that inexperienced shooters, whether men or women, will pick firearms based on different criteria than experienced shooters. Also, the general point that the article makes, (small frame revolvers are terrible first handguns) seems like good advice to me.

So choosing a mini-revolver in 2013 is better?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joshs]

So choosing a mini-revolver in 2013 is better?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It certainly wasn't my choice in 2013, but the author didn't recommend it either. I read the article as trying to get people to reject the idea that a small .38 revolver is a good handgun for inexperienced shooters.

[Tamara]

I wonder if the article made the print edition before they realized how badly they screwed up?

Most articles on the web are not for print.

The ones that are for print do not go on the web and then "make the print edition".

Ones that are done for the print edition usually, eventually wind up on the web.

It's funny how, in a thread making fun of a writer for not staying in her lane, people are swerving all the fuck all over out of their own.

[blues]

Most articles on the web are not for print.

The ones that are for print do not go on the web and then "make the print edition".

Ones that are done for the print edition usually, eventually wind up on the web.

It's funny how, in a thread making fun of a writer for not staying in her lane, people are swerving all the fuck all over out of their own.

Must be icy on the information superhighway.

[BillSWPA]

Most articles on the web are not for print.

The ones that are for print do not go on the web and then "make the print edition".

Ones that are done for the print edition usually, eventually wind up on the web.

It's funny how, in a thread making fun of a writer for not staying in her lane, people are swerving all the fuck all over out of their own.

Since when is my lane defined by someone I have never met?