View Full Version : Is anyone proficient with dual handguns anymore?
I was thinking last night (and this is purely conjecture - it has no real application that I can think of)...
In the days of the old west, it wasn't entirely uncommon for cowboys to be proficient with using two guns at the same time, one in each hand. Many written accounts and photos back this up. Many of the top shooters of the 1800's dual-wielded pistols as well. These guys didn't simply spray-and-pray, they were ambidextrous expert marksman.
Fast forward to today... and not many people even own more than one handgun, let alone do they know how to use two. Now I know our culture and technology has removed much (if not all) of the "need" for such a skill, but I personally would think that it would still be a skill (relatively) many would want to pride themselves in excelling at. Outside of maybe cowboy action shooters, I've never seen or even heard of anyone being proficient with dual handguns (Hollywood movies excluded).
Any thoughts or insights?
Dale Gribble
08-10-10, 10:24
I don't see a reason to be proficient at dual wielding. But I do wish I could shoot left handed as well as I can right handed. My reason being that in a true self defense situation for a non-LEO you are not likely going to be firing the first shot(except maybe within your own home). Assuming the gremlin shoots first and wounds your normal shooting side and assuming you aren't completely taken out of the fight it would be nice to be able to competently return fire with your off hand.
Capacity, reliability and the technique of shooting have all changed that, in my opinion anyway.
Before you had five or six shots, also often times they were cap and ball, not cartridges, so if the powder got damp, or if it sat too long for whatever reason, you'd have a misfire in the cylinder and have a bullet/powder and primer stuck in the gun's cylinder.
I think it would be reckless to carry back then with just one gun, because also, look at the magazine capacity and how complicated a reload is, with 5-6 shots and then you have to mess with an op rod and rotating a cylinder, or some designs were tip up, but still, in a gun fight, who has time for that? They didn't have speed strips.
Lastly Technique, everything back then was also massive calibers for the most part .45 Long Colt, .44 Magnum, etc., long barrels with the weight at the front of the gun, firing it one handed and then raising and firing another revolver in the other hand to speed up follow up shots or basically point shooting was the methodology employed, or at least from what I've observed.
I'd say carry a spare gun, if you feel the need, but don't carry a spare gun to have one in each hand, you sacrifice control in recoil, and really aiming the weapon, Strong hand only and weak hand only shooting is much harder than shooting with both hands, or at least following up is.
Also, what range will let you practice with handguns in both hands?
Almost none I know, because some people insist on shooting guns as fast as they can pull the trigger often times without seeing the sights on one pistol with both hands.
YMMV, interesting discussion, but I just think that the modern technique points to different weapon handling skills.
I routinely include 2 handgun shooting in my sessions using threat focused skills,mostly with a pair of G19's.I have also done so with a 19 and a17,auto and revolver,or two revolvers.
I started doing this in the late 60's-early 70's and got away from it for a while but there is value in it and I have always included it for past several years.
It's really not that difficult to do well with good coordination.It just simply adds to your proficiency,another tool in the box so to speak.
Kind of hard to use the sights on two different pieces at the same time.
Kind of hard to use the sights on two different pieces at the same time.
That's what was so amazing about the cowboy shooters - they (typically) didn't need sights. They had so much practice and proficiency that they knew from muscle-memory alone where their shots would impact. Horse-shoes is a game that relies on similar skills (albeit not as honed or as spectacular).
For longer precision shots, yes, you'd need sights, but out to 25-50yds, they could nail virtually anything from the hip.
Kind of hard to use the sights on two different pieces at the same time. That's where threat focused skills come into play which is what you will be doing in a fight anyway.May as well be good at it.:)
I learned to shoot "better" with my support hand when I was running Cowboy Action Shooting guns. I shot "gunfighter" class, which is one in each hand, alternating hands. The targets were stupid close, but it was fun as hell. Aside from a game like SASS, there's no real application of one in each hand that I can think of... other than it's just damn fun to do with single action revolvers. Yeeeehawww!
Besides that, I think historical accounts are probably a little "colorful" in regards to how things actually took place in the old west. I'm sure it happened, but as with many things in the old west, there was some serious exaggeration. There weren't any gunfights at high noon that spanned half the town in length. Many were at contact distances to 10 feet. A pistol back then (1880's) would cost around $25-$75 depending on what part of the country you were in. That's around $550-$1650 in today's dollars. Considering how much they were paid(loose term) at that time, carrying two pistols either came about from gambling well or taking it off someone you'd killed.
Dual wielding is for movies, video games and Cowboy Action Shooting IMO.
Crow Hunter
08-10-10, 10:39
What advantage would you gain with a gun in each hand at the same time?
I have actually done it with both single action revolvers and G19s.
I was significantly slower than I was firing single handed when holding any type of accuracy.
Even if I was ambidexterous, I don't see it as an advantage to constantly be switching focus back and forth. If I put both guns in exactly the same position so I don't have to switch focus, I am even slower and I might as well just fire one until empty then bring the other up. If you factor in reduced control/speed firing 1 handed, I would be better off firing one until empty 2 handed, do a New York reload and continue firing left handed. (Assuming I was a mutant and just as good with both hands).
Now for sheer fun factor, that is something else.
One thing about revolvers and gunslinger is watch out for hand placement and the cylinder gap.... Oww Oww Oww....:haha:
I routinely include 2 handgun shooting in my sessions using threat focused skills,mostly with a pair of G19's.
What do you gain by firing two weapons with half as much control and no use of sights?
For what scenarios are you practicing? In what context do you envision finding that the best use for your hands is to hold two pistols?
I can't imagine a single situation in which the off hand wouldn't be better used for manipulating things (slide, flashlight, doorknob, magazines, etc), controlling the primary weapon, or fending in close quarters.
Wielding two pistols seems to offer the worst of all worlds.
NCPatrolAR
08-10-10, 10:46
I dont see the need. In the times you cited; people probably learned the skill (argueably to what actual level) due to revolver being slow to reload.
What do you gain by firing two weapons with half as much control and no use of sights?
For what scenarios are you practicing? In what context do you envision finding that the best use for your hands is to hold two pistols?
I can't imagine a single situation in which the off hand wouldn't be better used for manipulating things (slide, flashlight, doorknob, magazines, etc), controlling the primary weapon, or fending in close quarters.
Wielding two pistols seems to offer the worst of all worlds.
Exactly. I get so annoyed with movies that have people wielding two pistols and doing "well" with their shooting. If I see a preview on TV for such a movie, that is just enough for me to completely avoid seeing the movie.
I see many people bring up that it would be slower and more awkward. Both of these items could be solved with practice and training. If people can juggle dual chainsaws while the blades are running without incident, then shooting dual pistols should be a cakewalk by comparison. Let's not focus on anything that could be solved through an decent amount of practice.
The valid points I've seen are 1) practicality and 2) loss of support hand.
This is a good discussion... carry on! :smile:
NCPatrolAR
08-10-10, 10:49
but there is value in it
And that is?
NCPatrolAR
08-10-10, 10:52
I see many people bring up that it would be slower and more awkward. Both of these items could be solved with practice and training. If people can juggle dual chainsaws while the blades are running without incident, then shooting dual pistols should be a cakewalk by comparison. Let's not focus on anything that could be solved through an decent amount of practice.
The valid points I've seen are 1) practicality and 2) loss of support hand.
This is a good discussion... carry on! :smile:
Why not use the time it takes to become ok with two pistols to become even better with one?
I see many people bring up that it would be slower and more awkward. Both of these items could be solved with practice and training.
Mitigated? Yes.
Solved? No.
It's basic physics: firing a gun with one hand will never be as fast as with two hands. Shot to shot recovery will take time.
If it could be "solved" with just practice, why would competition shooters ever bother putting two hands on the pistol? They could use that off hand to shave time in all sorts of crazy ways. As just one example, imagine if they just ran around with the off-hand on the spare mag: they could shave reload times.
John_Wayne777
08-10-10, 10:54
That's what was so amazing about the cowboy shooters - they (typically) didn't need sights. They had so much practice and proficiency that they knew from muscle-memory alone where their shots would impact.
I think you're confusing legend with fact, my friend. Aside from Wild Bill Hickock who is documented firing two revolvers simultaneously at two separate targets, I don't know of any other examples of individuals using two pistols at the same time. Even Wild Bill's shot was a trick shot.
For longer precision shots, yes, you'd need sights, but out to 25-50yds, they could nail virtually anything from the hip.
I'd say that's a lot more legend than fact. It's easy to dramatically overestimate the skill of old west gunfighters because an entire genre of entertainment flourishes around the mythology of the old west. In truth, we know a hell of a lot more about gunfighting today than they ever did. We shoot more than they ever did. There are competitions today using firearms and equipment from that era and even the most dedicated competitors couldn't hope to reproduce the feats many people seem to think were common among gunfighters in those days. The American west did not, in fact, see a generation of superhuman gunfighters.
That's where threat focused skills come into play which is what you will be doing in a fight anyway.May as well be good at it.:)
Threat focused sighting is fine within the range where it applies...but I'm telling you from considerable experience that you can stare as hard as you'd like at where you want the bullets to go, but it won't accomplish much. In a fight you'll do what you've trained to do...which is why training is important.
If it could be "solved" with just practice, why would competition shooters ever bother putting two hands on the pistol? They could use that off hand to shave time in all sorts of crazy ways. As just one example, imagine if they just ran around with the off-hand on the spare mag: they could shave reload times.
IIRC there is a "gunfighter" class in SASS where competitors have to use a pistol in both hands. To the best of my knowledge even the best shooters in the "gunfighter" class are routinely bested by skilled shooters running guns one handed. That would be a clue about the utility of that particular approach.
Im pretty damn good with Akimbo Glock 18s in Call of Duty...
But in real life I have a hard enough time placing the shot where I want with both hands on my Beretta let alone a gun in each hand.
As stated before, I think the availability of more than 5 or 6 rounds per handgun, the speed of magazine reloading eliminated the need to fight with two handguns at the same time.
Having said that, I find it increadible how they were able to draw, fire and hit their target all without even raising the gun to eye level.
That's what was so amazing about the cowboy shooters - they (typically) didn't need sights. They had so much practice and proficiency that they knew from muscle-memory alone where their shots would impact. Horse-shoes is a game that relies on similar skills (albeit not as honed or as spectacular).
For longer precision shots, yes, you'd need sights, but out to 25-50yds, they could nail virtually anything from the hip.
Wyatt Earp's own words, from Eugene Cunningham's book Triggernometry:
"I was a fair hand with pistol, rifle, or shotgun, but I learned more about gunfighting from Tom Speer's cronies during the summer of '71 than I had dreamed was in the book. Those old-timers took their gunplay seriously, which was natural under the conditions in which they lived. Shooting, to them, was considerably more than aiming at a mark and pulling a trigger. Models of weapons, methods of wearing them, means of getting them into action and operating them, all to the one end of combining high speed with absolute accuracy, contributed to the frontiersman's shooting skill. The sought-after degree of proficiency was that which could turn to most effective account the split-second between life and death. Hours upon hours of practice, and wide experience in actualities supported their arguments over style.
The most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting -- grandstand play -- as I would poison.
When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can best describe such time taking as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man's muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what I mean.
In all my life as a frontier police officer, I did not know a really proficient gunfighter who had anything but contempt for the gun-fanner, or the man who literally shot from the hip. In later years I read a great deal about this type of gunplay, supposedly employed by men noted for skill with a forty-five.
From personal experience and numerous six-gun battles which I witnessed, I can only support the opinion advanced by the men who gave me my most valuable instruction in fast and accurate shooting, which was that the gun-fanner and hip-shooter stood small chance to live against a man who, as old Jack Gallagher always put it, took his time and pulled the trigger once.
Cocking and firing mechanisms on new revolvers were almost invariably altered by their purchasers in the interests of smoother, effortless handling, usually by filing the dog which controlled the hammer, some going so far as to remove triggers entirely or lash them against the guard, in which cases the guns were fired by thumbing the hammer. This is not to be confused with fanning, in which the triggerless gun is held in one hand while the other was brushed rapidly across the hammer to cock the gun, and firing it by the weight of the hammer itself. A skillful gun-fanner could fire five shots from a forty-five so rapidly that the individual reports were indistinguishable, but what could happen to him in a gunfight was pretty close to murder.
I saw Jack Gallagher's theory borne out so many times in deadly operation that I was never tempted to forsake the principles of gunfighting as I had them from him and his associates.
There was no man in the Kansas City group who was Wild Bill's equal with a six-gun. Bill's correct name, by the way, was James B. Hickok. Legend and the imaginations of certain people have exaggerated the number of men he killed in gunfights and have misrepresented the manner in which he did his killing. At that, they could not very well overdo his skill with pistols.
Hickok knew all the fancy tricks and was as good as the best at that sort of gunplay, but when he had serious business at hand, a man to get, the acid test of marksmanship, I doubt if he employed them. At least, he told me that he did not. I have seen him in action and I never saw him fan a gun, shoot from the hip, or try to fire two pistols simultaneously. Neither have I ever heard a reliable old-timer tell of any trick-shooting employed by Hickok when fast straight-shooting meant life or death.
That two-gun business is another matter that can stand some truth before the last of the old-time gunfighters has gone on. They wore two guns, most of six-gun toters did, and when the time came for action went after them with both hands. But they didn't shoot them that way.
Primarily, two guns made the threat of something in reserve; they were useful as a display of force when a lone man stacked up against a crowd. Some men could shoot equally well with either hand, and in a gunplay might alternate their fire; others exhausted the loads from the gun on the right, or the left, as the case might be, then shifted the reserve weapon to the natural shooting hand if that was necessary and possible. Such a move -- the border shift -- could be made faster than the eye could follow a top-notch gun-thrower, but if the man was as good as that, the shift would seldom be required.
Whenever you see a picture of some two-gun man in action with both weapons held closely against his hips and both spitting smoke together, you can put it down that you are looking at the picture of a fool, or a fake. I remember quite a few of these so-called two-gun men who tried to operate everything at once, but like the fanners, they didn't last long in proficient company.
In the days of which I am talking, among men whom I have in mind, when a man went after his guns, he did so with a single, serious purpose. There was no such thing as a bluff; when a gunfighter reached for his forty-five, every faculty he owned was keyed to shooting as speedily and as accurately as possible, to making his first shot the last of the fight. He just had to think of his gun solely as something with which to kill another before he himself could be killed. The possiblity of intimidating an antagonist was remote, although the 'drop' was thoroughly respected, and few men in the West would draw against it. I have seen men so fast and so sure of themselves that they did go after their guns while men who intended to kill them had them covered, and what is more win out in the play. They were rare. It is safe to say, for all general purposes, that anything in gunfighting that smacked of show-off or bluff was left to braggarts who were ignorant or careless of their lives.
I might add that I never knew a man who amounted to anything to notch his gun with 'credits,' as they were called, for men he had killed. Outlaws, gunmen of the wild crew who killed for the sake of brag, followedthis custom. I have worked with most of the noted peace officers -- Hickok, Billy Tilghman, Pat Sughre, Bat Masterson, Charlie Basset, and others of like caliber -- have handled their weapons many times, but never knew one of them to carry a notched gun.
There are two other points about the old-time method of using six-guns most effectively that do not seem to be generally known. One is that the gun was not cocked with the ball of the thumb. As his gun was jerked into action, the old-timer closed the whole joint of his thumb over the hammer and the gun was cocked in that fashion. The soft flesh of the thumb ball might slip if a man's hands were moist, and a slip was not to be chanced if humanly avoidable. This thumb-joint method was employed whether or not a man used the trigger for firing.
On the second point, I have often been asked why five shots without reloading were all a top-notch gunfighter fired, when his guns were chambered for six cartridges. The answer is, merely, safety. To ensure against accidental discharge of the gun while in the holster, due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber. As widely as this was known and practiced, the number of cartridges a man carried in his six-gun may be taken as an indication of a man's rank with the gunfighters of the old school. Practiced gun-wielders had too much respect for their weapons to take unnecessary chances with them; it was only with tyros and would-bes that you heard of accidental discharges or didn't-know-it-was-loaded injuries in the country where carrying a Colt's was a man's prerogative."
Thanks very much, Lumpy. Fascinating piece, 95% of which sounds like could be written today.
Wyatt Earp's own words..
Wow... that was an AMAZING read! I think I might actually go buy that book tonight. Thank you!
Complication
08-10-10, 11:20
Edit: no need for me to clutter this thread up with my contributions.
Lumpy pretty much dotted the I's and crossed the T's.
Wow... that was an AMAZING read! I think I might actually go buy that book tonight. Thank you!
A BIG +1!
I was friggn glued to it. :D
-drew
rrpederson
08-10-10, 14:40
in my opinion, i think that back then, dual wielding pistols was more for the purpose of having more ammunition at your disposal, in hopes of raising your chance to hit your target or multiple targets. with the way that technology has gone, dual wielding pistols has gone away and into action movies because now, having more ammunition at your disposal is as easy as pushing a button, dropping away a magazine and replacing it with a new one. as someone already said, at best they had to load 6 cylinders, one at a time, which requires time and fine motor function under stress. to be honest though, the ability of shooting a gun accurately with either hand is still a very valuable skill, but with today's modern weaponry, one of those pistols has to be holstered or tucked under an arm to be reloaded. just my opinion.
richie
I see that there apparently has been very little interest,study,or practice from most involving sightless shooting at defensive distances,most prefering sighted fire over anything else.
There may not ever be a need to deploy two identical or even different handguns,or the situation may be very rare where one would need to do so. This does not obviate the fact that having that skill and being able to use it on demand is just icing on the cake.
As far as focusing back and forth from one target to another while firing two handguns....well,that's not the way it is done. Peripheral vision is used to hit both targets,one with each gun without actually having a dead focus on either. It is effective and once you are trained into it, it becomes so easy as to make any arguments against it just plain silly.
At close distances where pistol fights actually occur 99% of the time. you can start with two targets side by side,and gradually move them farther apart as you become attuned to using the peripheral vision, and eventually end up with one to your extreme right and the other to the extreme left and be able to place multiple good hits on each one while focusing straight ahead,and using the peripheral vision.
Sighted fire is not necessary to accomplish this. Once ingrained it is not a perishable skill. I do concede that the need to be able to do this would be rare,but why place limitations on your skill sets with your defensive handgun(s).
I,and others who advocate unsighted fire at close ranges with a handgun,and who have had occasion to do it in a real situations,have been dragged through the dirt all over the internet forums for years for our beliefs. I expect it to happen here also,but I am not offended by it.I am accustomed to it.
I will also say that,yes,sighted fire should also be used where applicable at longer ranges.I do that too.:)
With open mindedness,the possibilities of what you can do with your handgun(s) is virtually limitless. As someone else stated,it's fun too,especially as your skills evolve and you become better and better.
I see that there apparently has been very little interest,study,or practice from most involving sightless shooting at defensive distances,most prefering sighted fire over anything else.
The argument over sighted fire is a red herring here. A person can train the entire spectrum of sighted > indexed fire and gain an extreme level of proficiency without ever having to wield dual pistols.
There may not ever be a need to deploy two identical or even different handguns,or the situation may be very rare where one would need to do so. This does not obviate the fact that having that skill and being able to use it on demand is just icing on the cake.
We all have a fixed amount of time, money, and resources to dedicate towards training, so I can't really agree with your philosophy here. I could just as easily say, "There may not ever be a need to fire a Glock 18 while riding a unicycle, but that does not obviate the fact that having that skill is just icing on the cake."
Once ingrained it is not a perishable skill.
I honestly believe that all mechanical skills are perishable. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one.
I do concede that the need to be able to do this would be rare,but why place limitations on your skill sets with your defensive handgun(s).
OK - so are you going to pick up that unicycle then? We all need to draw a reasonable line somewhere. You can't just train anything you imagine because sticking to fundamentals is placing "limitations" on your skill sets.
I,and others who advocate unsighted fire at close ranges with a handgun,and who have had occasion to do it in a real situations,have been dragged through the dirt all over the internet forums for years for our beliefs. I expect it to happen here also,but I am not offended by it.I am accustomed to it.
Again, there is a world of difference between decrying dual-pistol wielding and saying that all rounds must be fired from perfect sight alignment. To take the argument down that path is disingenuous.
Moose-Knuckle
08-10-10, 16:40
A different time. . .
Republic of Texas' Rangers were the first to deploy a revolver in combat. Fifteen Rangers armed with the then new Paterson revolvers conquered a band of about 100 Comanche warriors in a fight at Plum Creek, near San Antonio on August 12, 1840. Then in the mid 1840's Captain Samuel Hamilton Walker ventured North to meet with Samuel Colt to design the Walker Colt, the largest and most powerful black powder repeating handgun ever made. Unlike Hollywood's depictions, the Ranger would not carry these guns holstered to him but instead he would have mounted them to his horse's saddle. It was not uncommon for a Ranger to have three or four of these pistols with him. The Rangers could shoot with one in each hand in full gallop while still controlling their horse's reins. Unloaded the Walker Colt weighs in at four and half pounds with it's nine inch barrel.
Today unless you are a SASS competitor I don't see why one would need to utilize two handguns at once. By all means this does not mean one should not be proficient with both hands.
There is a strong argument for proficiency with either hand. An adjunct to this argument, is the case for carry of two identical guns. The theory being that you can't always count on your "strong" hand being free to draw your gun, but you'd have the option to draw from the "weak" side in such a case. This theory does not, however, advocate simultaneous use of both guns.
That's the theory anyway. I don't practice this mode of carry, but have thought about it on occasion due to my own physiology. I am left-handed and left-eye dominant, but my right side is my stronger side. I can draw faster from the right side, but am slightly faster getting on the sights from the left side. Shot-to-shot recovery is a little better shooting right-handed, but fine motor skills are better left-handed. In theory, I could swap the mag release on one of my M&Ps and carry mirror-image guns on each side of my body and be reasonably proficient with either.
This is theory, in reality, if I carry a BUG, it's in a pocket.
Aw, come on, ya bunch of haters. Chow Yun Fat makes it look so damned easy...
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070803174440/uncyclopedia/images/1/18/CYF008.jpg
"...Give the guy a gun, and he's Superman. Give him two, and he's God!"
http://www.imfdb.org/images/d/de/ABetterTomorrow_II_02.jpg
I was thinking last night (and this is purely conjecture - it has no real application that I can think of)...
In the days of the old west, it wasn't entirely uncommon for cowboys to be proficient with using two guns at the same time, one in each hand. Many written accounts and photos back this up. Many of the top shooters of the 1800's dual-wielded pistols as well. These guys didn't simply spray-and-pray, they were ambidextrous expert marksman.
Fast forward to today... and not many people even own more than one handgun, let alone do they know how to use two. Now I know our culture and technology has removed much (if not all) of the "need" for such a skill, but I personally would think that it would still be a skill (relatively) many would want to pride themselves in excelling at. Outside of maybe cowboy action shooters, I've never seen or even heard of anyone being proficient with dual handguns (Hollywood movies excluded).
Any thoughts or insights?
So, is it conjecture, or isn't it? I was under the impression that the most commonly carried firearm on the frontier was the double barreled 12g shot gun.
As for practicality... I don't think there were more than a handful of gunfights that actually took place on the frontier, Clint Eastwood style. Mostly ambushes when one drunk dude shot another drunk dude in the back as he stumbled out of a saloon.
I can shoot with either hand and either eye, but I have not mastered the ability to unhinge one eye from the other and shoot a pistol from each hand, independent from the other. I'd much rather have two hand on one pistol and only use one eye at a time.
"Is anyone proficient with dual handguns anymore?"
To answer the OP's original question above....
YES. Just about every Hollywood movie gunfight scene has someone, if not multiple people, displaying phenomenal proficiency with dual pistols.... That should be a clue!
Collegefour
08-11-10, 04:48
I tried shooting my G17 and G26 at the same time when I first got my G26....it was fun, but I couldn't hit anything outside of about five yards. Haven't done it again since then, ammo's too expensive, and it wasn't THAT fun.
John_Wayne77's post mirrors my thoughts on the whole idea of that type of display from those days and Lumpy's excerpt from that book nailed the coffin lid down.
Wyatt Earp's own words, from Eugene Cunningham's book Triggernometry:
Damnit, you just made me buy another book.
John_Wayne777
08-12-10, 07:18
I see that there apparently has been very little interest,study,or practice from most involving sightless shooting at defensive distances,most prefering sighted fire over anything else.
I've done a lot of study and a lot more practice of sightless fire...and I've discovered it is a technique with limited application, especially if one maintains realistic marksmanship standards. Barely hanging a round on a big static piece of paper is an inadequate marksmanship standard.
There may not ever be a need to deploy two identical or even different handguns,or the situation may be very rare where one would need to do so. This does not obviate the fact that having that skill and being able to use it on demand is just icing on the cake.
...how, exactly? I mean, can you actually document any examples of a real fight where somebody was actively using two pistols at once with any useful effect?
As far as focusing back and forth from one target to another while firing two handguns....well,that's not the way it is done. Peripheral vision is used to hit both targets,one with each gun without actually having a dead focus on either.
...so under the stress of a life or death encounter you're not actually going to look at the threat...you're going to instead try and point shoot using only your peripheral vision, which is conveniently able to encompass both threats at the same time.
Good luck with that.
At close distances where pistol fights actually occur 99% of the time. you can start with two targets side by side,and gradually move them farther apart as you become attuned to using the peripheral vision, and eventually end up with one to your extreme right and the other to the extreme left and be able to place multiple good hits on each one while focusing straight ahead,and using the peripheral vision.
Again I'll mention that because you can accomplish something with static paper targets that do not shoot back it does not automatically mean that you can translate that into real world performance. The true test of this would be to drop you into a FOF scenario where you attempt to dual wield a couple of simunitions Glocks against living, breathing, moving dudes who are actively trying to shoot you. Somehow I doubt you would be terribly effective in that scenario.
I do concede that the need to be able to do this would be rare,but why place limitations on your skill sets with your defensive handgun(s).
If you have an unlimited amount of time to practice and an unlimited amount of money to fund the consumption of ammunition and training...and you've already mastered pistolcraft...then perhaps for giggles you could work on developing a technique that as far as I know no serious gunfighter has ever successfully employed in a fight.
If, however, time and money are limited resources for an individual, it's probably better for them to focus on the skills that have been shown over history to produce results for everybody from Wild Bill Hickock to modern Tier 1 units...namely aiming the firearm at the threat and executing a proper trigger press.
Exactly what constitutes "aiming" can indeed vary according to the circumstances and would include what many refer to as "point shooting"...but you're not making an argument about point shooting. I don't think anyone who has any reasonable level of training or experience is going to contend that point shooting has no place in a shooter's arsenal.
Contending that one should be able to fire two handguns simultaneously using their peripheral vision is quite a bit different than being an advocate of point shooting.
John_Wayne777
08-12-10, 07:23
As for practicality... I don't think there were more than a handful of gunfights that actually took place on the frontier, Clint Eastwood style. Mostly ambushes when one drunk dude shot another drunk dude in the back as he stumbled out of a saloon.
Most old west gunfights looked a lot like most modern gunfights. The whole showdown in the street thing wasn't the common experience. In fact, the only documented instance of that I am aware of is a fight where Wild Bill Hickock drilled an opponent from some outrageous distance (75 yards, IIRC) right through the heart...with a cap and ball Colt revolver.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that he was firing one revolver at a time in that incident...and that he aimed his shot.
I believe I remember hearing that the whole 'quickdraw duel at high noon' thing was inspired by the draw duels in samurai movies (Kurosawa films and the like). The westerns borrowed heavily from them, and that trope was a direct adaptation of the 'single battojutsu drawcut fastest sword wins' duel, which sometimes did happen and makes more sense with swords anyway.
So that one comes straight out of the movies, and it doesn't really make sense anyway. We know how unlikely it is that a man will go down instantly from a single pistol round, so why would you stand there in the middle of the street and hope he dies in the 1/100th of a second between your shot and his? Movie magic.
Reading that excerpt, (FASCINATING reading. I never knew that those old lawmen wrote down much) most of the stuff he says follow the general thinking of this site and trainers like Magpul. The line about fast muscles and deliberate mind reminded me of Magpuls 'speed of life' and 'problem solver' philosophies.
I could definitely see this more during the percussion revolver era, especially among guerrilla cavalry during the War of Northern Aggression ( ;) ).
That does not mean that marksmanship standards back then were what they are now, and I would bet that most of it ended up being suppressive fire. When it takes you 4 or 5 minutes to reload, you carry 4 or more revolvers plus a carbine.
As other's have stated, outside of The Outlaw Josey Wales, there really isn't a practical use for it in the modern era.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Movie%20guns/JoseyWalkers.jpg
chrisinohio
08-12-10, 13:12
using my left hand felt very awkward and unstable but it feels much better now. I'm planning on shooting a match left-handed this fall for fun.
I think if you were faced with attackers coming from two angles it "might" be useful but then again it might just slow you down. Personally I think trying to make your brain do two things at once (focus on two targets) wouldn't produce the best outcome.
You do see it in the movies a lot though.
http://dc.metromix.com/content_image/full/1438925/560/370
Chris
NCPatrolAR
08-12-10, 13:21
People need to apply some common sense to this. If people have a tendency to get "sucked in" to one threat and shoot it to the ground prior to moving to additional threats ; how are you going to be able to focus on and successfully engage two seperate threats acting independtly of each other while using two handguns?
Moose-Knuckle
08-12-10, 14:47
That does not mean that marksmanship standards back then were what they are now, and I would bet that most of it ended up being suppressive fire. When it takes you 4 or 5 minutes to reload, you carry 4 or more revolvers plus a carbine.
This was the Ranger's philosophy as well, quicker reloads. The Indians and Mexicans didn't know what hit them as the volley of fire just kept coming. :cool:
These black powder rounds were also notorious for being either under powered or misfiring all together so it was comforting to know you had three or four more pistols to take care of business.
The late Jim Cirillo, of the NYPD SOU (stakeout unit) survived more gun fights on "the mean streets" than any other Officer before him. Back before the boom of semi-autos he always carried four or five revolvers on his person. He was quoted once, "the fastest reload is another gun". Mr. Cirillo knew a thing or two about modern gun play, in no way did he weld two guns at once though.
Dale Gribble
08-12-10, 15:11
This was the Ranger's philosophy as well, quicker reloads. The Indians and Mexicans didn't know what hit them as the volley of fire just kept coming. :cool:
These black powder rounds were also notorious for being either under powered or misfiring all together so it was comforting to know you had three or four more pistols to take care of business.
The late Jim Cirillo, of the NYPD SOU (stakeout unit) survived more gun fights on "the mean streets" than any other Officer before him. Back before the boom of semi-autos he always carried four or five revolvers on his person. He was quoted once, "the fastest reload is another gun". Mr. Cirillo knew a thing or two about modern gun play, in no way did he weld two guns at once though.
Not to side track the thread, but your piece about Jim Cirillo brings this character from Boondock Saints to mind...
http://www.imfdb.org/images/6/6b/The_Boondock_Saints_-_Il_Duce.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
08-12-10, 15:31
Not to side track the thread, but your piece about Jim Cirillo brings this character from Boondock Saints to mind...
http://www.imfdb.org/images/6/6b/The_Boondock_Saints_-_Il_Duce.jpg
"Easy boys, daddy's workin'. . ." :cool:
For the people in this thread asking about and advocating the use of two handguns at the same time, out of curiosity I would be interested in knowing what formal shooting classes you have attended.
IIRC there is a "gunfighter" class in SASS where competitors have to use a pistol in both hands. To the best of my knowledge even the best shooters in the "gunfighter" class are routinely bested by skilled shooters running guns one handed. That would be a clue about the utility of that particular approach.
Not really. The overall winners usually shoot one gun at a time, but winning involves pistol, rifle and shotgun and the transitions between guns are one of the biggest factors. Scroll down this page and watch the Pistol videos. The fastest for 10 shots are the gunfighters, alternating between hands. This is Led Dispencer's world record page; all shots have to hit steel.
I don't really take this question seriously for EDC, but anyone who has seen a proficient "gunfighter" style shooter knows it can be done.
I still shoot cowboy guns one at a time, and I'll stick to that with my carry guns too. Besides, it would really be costly to have to buy two of everything. :p
ETA: You'll notice that Widowmaker doesn't use the sights at all. SASS pistol targets are typically 7 paces away. Can't tell how far they are in his video.
http://www.spencerhoglund.com/worldrecords.html
Anyone experienced what happens to peripheral vision under stress? :eek: :D
The only even remotely viable solution would be two pistols with laser sights so you can actually aim them. That said, with both hands on a single gun, you can fire more accurately, recover more quickly, and *gasp* reload or clear a malfunction should the need arise. Guns akimbo is a fun trick for the movies, but it has no place in real life. Carrying two guns is meant for easier access with either hand, or to have 'high availability' in case of a catastrophic malfunction. It's not to shoot both of them at the same time.
I knew that recovery time was slower when using one hand, but I didn't realize just how much recoil control that support hand provides until I viewed a series of pics from an IDPA match I shot in. One handed stage? Muzzle jump. Two handed? The muzzle stayed pretty flat.
Of course, we shoot with full power loads in IDPA and not the mousefart loads that CAS shooters often use...
Eugene Cunningham's book Triggernometry is well worth reading, so is Ed McGivern's Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting.
More recently Bill Rogers book is very good.
Anyone experienced what happens to peripheral vision under stress? :eek: :D
That pretty much sums it up.
I can't believe how many people are taking this seriously yet the thread with the bedside gun holster widget gets nothing but hate.
Moose-Knuckle
08-13-10, 15:34
That pretty much sums it up.
I can't believe how many people are taking this seriously yet the thread with the bedside gun holster widget gets nothing but hate.
I don't think anyone here on M4C.com is taking the dime store novel stories serioulsy. I think this thread has debunked the myths and presented some facts on the subject.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.