View Full Version : What constitutes someone being a serious gun user?
Thread title says it all.
I see this stated often on this site, but I am just curious as to what makes someone a "serious gun user."
Is it because a person is in LE, grunt in the .mil or a reservist, someone that takes a lot of tactical shooting classes or is it a guy that shoots X amount of rounds a year, someone who uses certain brands of weapons, SWAT etc etc?
i'd say it's more a mindset than a round count. if you've committed yourself to continuous improvement in performance then you're serious. maybe you just dry fired your very first pistol 1000 times in a row, and maybe you just took your 5th magpul course. serious either way imho.
Knowing the difference between a clip & a may.
I think someone who is competent, and takes the time to seriously train to use their weapon in a life or death situation, whether that be home defense, big game hunting, on police patrol, or while overseas.
So:
1.) Takes time to seriously train.
2.) Competent.
It's subjective.
I've been shooting and collecting guns for more than 30 years. By the time I was in High School I had more guns than most adults I knew. And I've been around knowledgeable shooters for much of that time, most of my fathers shooting buddies were from the LFI group and they were the guys who taught me how to shoot.
But despite that there are a LOT of things I don't know. I've probably owned and shot over a hundred different K98s in that time (this includes shooting the Mausers that belonged to other collectors) so while I know a lot about how they shoot, I don't know the first thing about how they are made or what materials are used in the process.
Conversely, on a lot of other firearms I know a great deal about how they are made but I don't have a great deal of first hand information on performance characteristics. I tend to not shoot the shit out of rare firearms.
On to shooting expertise, I have put so many rounds downrage that current ammo prices make me cry. I have far more shooting experience than a lot of LE and military guys I know. I am more accurate than some, not as accurate as others. I know a few guys with less shooting experience than me who are far more accurate than I am. I know a few guys who have been shooting longer than me and I was more accurate in high school than they are now.
So I don't think profession makes you an expert, it simply means you have satisfied minimum standards to that profession. The best and worst shooters I know have been cops. Military shooters in general tend to be better than the worst cops and not quite as good as the best. Of course that could just be my experience.
And of course I've read. When I was about 12 the book Small Arms of the World by Ed Ezell became my own personal Sears catalog that I read every night. Since then I've spent enough money to buy a couple really nice rifles on my library (mostly the Collectors series by guys like Blake Stevens).
So I've got a pretty good understanding of firearm history and development. But sometimes those facts and figures swim in your head so I am only as accurate as my recall (and that ain't as reliable as it was in High School).
And with all that I have been accepted as a serious gun user by some and dismissed as not a serious gun user by others.
arizonaranchman
03-20-11, 17:29
I think someone who is competent, and takes the time to seriously train to use their weapon in a life or death situation, whether that be home defense, big game hunting, on police patrol, or while overseas.
So:
1.) Takes time to seriously train.
2.) Competent.
This sums it up pretty well.
Guns, shooting, hunting and the outdoors have been a part of my life for over 30 years. I'm never out of arm's reach of a firearm and have launched untold thousands of rounds over the years.
There's plenty of active .mil gun 'users' who know less about how their issue weapons than most people know about how their phone decodes a network enhanced GPS signal - being paid to carry one around doesn't always entail any form of expertise at operating it.
Round count is a lazy way to classify, but it is hard to be a serious shooter without actually putting rounds downrange and evaluating how the software is working with the hardware, so to speak.
Budget and opportunities may vary, but ANYBODY with the proper mindset to use a firearm as a tool in the right situation, who actively seeks training and improvement is all I'd look for.
theblackknight
03-21-11, 05:36
I own guns, and I'm pretty ****ing serious. . .
Internet tuff guy,over and out
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
On the one hand, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't gotten more traffic, on the other I'm sure most either don't know how to reply or don't bother replying as there's a high potential of trolling perceived in the title.
For me, I think it's pretty self-explanatory.
se·ri·ous
/ˈsɪəriəs/ Show Spelled[seer-ee-uhs]
–adjective
1.
of, showing, or characterized by deep thought.
2.
of grave or somber disposition, character, or manner: a serious occasion; a serious man.
3.
being in earnest; sincere; not trifling: His interest was serious.
4.
requiring thought, concentration, or application: serious reading; a serious task.
Note the repeated mention of "thought"?
Much like most things in life, people don't think about what they're doing for shit. They have some impulse ("need ar15 to impress friend at work/on internet/at range", or similar) and they act on it. They don't analyze the options, they don't research their purchase, they just march down to the place that they (foolishly and ignorantly) expect to be the bastion of expertise: the gunshop. And to make matters worse they actually LISTEN to the $8/hr dumbshit with an agenda behind the counter and take his advice!
The breakdown of the numerous failures to engage the brain, often referred to as "thought" (mentioned more than once in the definition quoted above) is too extensive to post in the time allotted!
To extend it a bit further, for our purposes here, on this forum, I would say that "serious" goes a bit further. You use the term "gun user", which I would call a "shooter". That is the crux of this website. One may be a serious collector and quickly find themselves alienated here. One may be a denizen of the shooting bench, with no real instruction besides *maybe* some basic marksmanship, and may find themselves alienated here.
It is not unheard of to see members of either group become serious shooters. I see it all the time at our matches and drills. I get collectors out that can't hit shit, can't move from A to B without falling down, can't reload under pressure of time, etc. Some get embarrassed and never show their face again. Others endeavor to persevere and come back out to fix what's wrong. The first will never be more than a serious collector, the second is on his way to becoming a serious shooter. Similarly I get bench denizens that can shot the -0 out of the target standing still, slow-fire, but they fall apart under the requirement of movement, or multiple targets, or the pressure of time. Again some go home and say "well that was stupid anyway". Some come back and work on their shortcomings.
In both cases, it is the second group, the ones that come back, that display the critical aspect of being "serious" about anything, and that is thought.
QuietShootr
03-21-11, 07:16
On the one hand, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't gotten more traffic, on the other I'm sure most either don't know how to reply or don't bother replying as there's a high potential of trolling perceived in the title.
For me, I think it's pretty self-explanatory.
Note the repeated mention of "thought"?
Much like most things in life, people don't think about what they're doing for shit. They have some impulse ("need ar15 to impress friend at work/on internet/at range", or similar) and they act on it. They don't analyze the options, they don't research their purchase, they just march down to the place that they (foolishly and ignorantly) expect to be the bastion of expertise: the gunshop. And to make matters worse they actually LISTEN to the $8/hr dumbshit with an agenda behind the counter and take his advice!
The breakdown of the numerous failures to engage the brain, often referred to as "thought" (mentioned more than once in the definition quoted above) is too extensive to post in the time allotted!
To extend it a bit further, for our purposes here, on this forum, I would say that "serious" goes a bit further. You use the term "gun user", which I would call a "shooter". That is the crux of this website. One may be a serious collector and quickly find themselves alienated here. One may be a denizen of the shooting bench, with no real instruction besides *maybe* some basic marksmanship, and may find themselves alienated here.
It is not unheard of to see members of either group become serious shooters. I see it all the time at our matches and drills. I get collectors out that can't hit shit, can't move from A to B without falling down, can't reload under pressure of time, etc. Some get embarrassed and never show their face again. Others endeavor to persevere and come back out to fix what's wrong. The first will never be more than a serious collector, the second is on his way to becoming a serious shooter. Similarly I get bench denizens that can shot the -0 out of the target standing still, slow-fire, but they fall apart under the requirement of movement, or multiple targets, or the pressure of time. Again some go home and say "well that was stupid anyway". Some come back and work on their shortcomings.
In both cases, it is the second group, the ones that come back, that display the critical aspect of being "serious" about anything, and that is thought.
This is on its way to being a good working definition. however, one thing needs to be ironed out first: The motivation for training and becoming a serious shooter.
I like Jeff Cooper's statement, paraphrased, which says 'Skill-at-arms is a necessary attribute of a free man, and it is the business of all men.' This means: Any "Why do you want to learn how to do that" bullshit FROM ANYONE is completely out of bounds, and need not even be dignified with a reply. I am far from the first person to advance this idea:
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe in the Philadelphia Gazette, 20 Feb 1788
I cannot imagine that Mr. Coxe intended 'every other terrible implement of the soldier' for the citizen, except training. And by that, I don't mean the sanitized training of the NRA Personal Protection course. I mean dirty, dirty shit... because a population with a lot of people trained and experienced in this way is much less likely to need those skills in the first place.
Yes, you will pay a price for having more of that information out there. In certain isolated incidents, people will get killed that maybe wouldn't have if not for the knowledge I'm talking about. A certain amount of that is simply the cost of a free society. Street crime in the old USSR was VERY low, almost to the point of nonexistence. The problem is in the measures it took to GET to that point. I would rather have a running battle to get to my car every morning than have no street crime and a KGB/Stasi-like apparat controlling everything. And in the end, those will be the choices.
Now, that's over and dealt with, and any further arguments on it will not be entertained. Any statist whining will automatically be redirected to /dev/null.
variablebinary
03-21-11, 08:50
...don't bother replying as there's a high potential of trolling perceived in the title.
Sounds about right...
Thread title says it all.
I see this stated often on this site, but I am just curious as to what makes someone a "serious gun user."
Is it because a person is in LE, grunt in the .mil or a reservist, someone that takes a lot of tactical shooting classes or is it a guy that shoots X amount of rounds a year, someone who uses certain brands of weapons, SWAT etc etc?
Funny story. My wife was at a Church function and was talking to another Mom. The women asked my wife what she did for a living. My wife responded that that we owned a gun shop. The lady responded that her husband was a "gun nut” too and that he owned a shotgun and a another gun. My wife laughed and replied; "you have no idea what a REAL "gun nut" looks like. :sarcastic:
So what is the definition of a "serious gun user?" Most would say that it is someone that owns a lot of guns. Or someone that carries a weapon for a living (LE/Military).
I have no problem agreeing with both cases, but for me, my definition requires two different requirements. To me, you can own a lot of guns, shoot a lot and carry a gun for your job, but are not a serious gun user. What separates the "serious" shooter from the guy that collects guns, shoots a lot or is REQUIRED to carry a gun for his job is two things. Mindset and training.
Mindset just isn't there with some firearms owners. Meaning that if you tell them that will have to shoot someone in the face in order to protect themselves and their loved ones, you can just see them buckle.
With the church security team I co-mentor, we use targets with teenagers faces on them. Why? Because a good many of the active shooters in this country are teens so you might as well get comfortable with shooting them.
Training is often considered not needed or that they "already know everything because they went through the acedemy or boot camp." If you are not striving to become better and learn what you don't know, then for me you are not a "serious gun user."
Just because GOD blessed you with a PENIS, doesn't mean you know how to shoot.
Just because your Father/Grandfather, Uncle. Brother, Cousin was a COP or Military doesn't mean you know how to shoot.
Just because you own all the latest tactical ninja gear and watch all the popular DVD's and YouTube video’s doesn't mean you know how to shoot.
Just because you play Airsoft and are the best at it, doesn't mean you know how to shoot.
YMMV.
C4
dookie1481
03-21-11, 12:55
S-1, if your posts weren't so often inflammatory/retaliatory, I think people would take this thread a little more seriously.
as there's a high potential of trolling perceived in the title.
Considering the original poster, that's a dead-on assessment.
I agree that it is subjective and just because you own a lot of guns or are LE/MIL doesn't make you a "shooter." Hell, I work with some guys that would much rather have a cookie dispenser in the spot on their belt that is occupied by their sidearm.
I also agree that making progress/training as a shooter is a good thing, but I don't know if that qualifies as a shooter or a serious gun user. Joe can go out and shoot 50 rounds at a target every two months and show an increase in accuracy but I wouldn't qualify him as a "shooter." Now, as Rob_S said, if Bob is moving while shooting, practices reloads, running drills, actually practices failure drills, shoots 500+ rounds a month and strives to be a better overall shooter, then yes, he is serious about being efficient with his weapons. He is well ahead of the curve and takes it more serious than 99% of gun owners.
Mindset is a whole different matter. Anybody can say or believe that they are the ultimate warrior, but until they are put in that spot to perform their ultimate warrior'ness, they will never know. We have all seen that person, the one that is a big badass who trains a lot and talks a big game, but when push comes to shove they fold. Sometimes the ones who are meek or aren't all about the bravado are the ones that perform when needed. I know an Officer who is just your run of the mill guy that doesn't walk around with a puffy chest, doesn't shoot more than the standard 3-4 quals a year, but shoots well (high 90's) at them. Well, he was put on the spot. He made a headshot, on the run, from 25 yards out with his pistol dropping the db who was literaly trying to shoot another officer but failed to do so because the gun was out of battery from pressing against his vest. Training helps a lot when push comes to shove, but it's not the deciding factor on who will perform or not when needed.
I also see some people use the phrase "it's not a weapon for a serious gun user" or that's a "bubba" gun. Usually talking about Kimbers, Bushmasters, 556's, XD's etc etc. But what if the people who are using said weapons meet the criteria for a shooter or a serious gun user as decribed in this thread? Are they not a "serious gun user" if they are using the above guns and they perform to their standards?
S-1, if your posts weren't so often inflammatory/retaliatory, I think people would take this thread a little more seriously.
I don't think that my posts are imflammatory. I just state my opinion and my personal experiences, just like everybody else does on a web board. If people think that I am trolling because I go against the grain of some others opinion sometimes, oh well. What makes Joe Blow (not talking about SME's) more experienced than me, or anyone else for that matter, to speak on a subject? Is it just because he pays to take shooting classes and rub shoulders with former HSLD types?
I'm always up for a good discussion/debate, and I won't shy away from some of the rockstars of the errornet gun world just because of who they think they are. If that makes some people upset, then Grant or his staff can hit the red button and lock me out I guess. But as of now, I have not recieved a warning that I will be removed from the site.
I also find it funny that I get called a troll, but there are several others that that spam threads left and right. I feel bad for a guy that is happy that he just purchased his new XD and then gets blasted by the usual crew calling it a bubba gun and that it won't work when needed blah blah. It happens all of the time! You can educate people without being an asshole and degrading them on their purchase that they probably scraped the piggy bank for.
Another scenario that I see play out all of the time is when someone is posting like they are the authority on a subject, while degrading others in the meantime, but they fail to state what experience they have to form their opinion when called out on it. Or when someone spams every thread about brand X by making blanket statements that they suck because they have seen a few of them fail. So what! Every gun manufacture puts out lemons or has a bad run of parts. Shit breaks! Fix it and move on. Even though brand Y is popular on the board, I don't go around and make blanket statements that they suck in every thread just because I have seen many issues with them. It gets old.
Sorry that this was off subject, but I wanted to address the guys who seem to think that I troll.
Now, as Rob_S said, if Bob is moving while shooting, practices reloads, running drills, actually practices failure drills, shoots 500+ rounds a month and strives to be a better overall shooter, then yes, he is serious about being efficient with his weapons. He is well ahead of the curve and takes it more serious than 99% of gun owners.
Mindset is a whole different matter. Anybody can say or believe that they are the ultimate warrior, but until they are put in that spot to perform their ultimate warrior'ness, they will never know.
And that brings up another point.
I know a lot of competition shooters who can do all the moving and shooting Rob described but they are essentially playing the game. I found myself falling into this mode when I was briefly part of Robs carbine club. I guess I should mention that my brief association was solely due to finding a closer shooting club that was more cost effective that I could attend more regularly and not because of any implied dissatisfaction with Robs carbine club.
But back to my point. I would mentally "pre practice" the upcoming drill in a way to determine how to most effectively engage targets, when to do reloads, etc. Then it occurred to me that this was actually counter productive to realistic training as you won't have any opportunity to "pre practice" a defensive shooting situation.
So I took exactly the opposite approach where I tried not to even note where the targets were and attempted to have only a cursory understanding of what each drill required so I would be forced to deal with it as it came to me. And my scores represented that mindset accordingly.
My accuracy was in line with the shooting accuracy of the top 10 scorers (not to suggest I shoot better than the consistent winner) but to point out that in terms of accuracy alone I'd score in the top 10. Obviously my time was slower as I forced myself to learn the drill as it presented it to me without any prior preparation. Again, I'm not suggesting I'd be the #1 scorer if I did it the other way (the guys who win are really good) but if I took the time to "play the game" I think I'd consistently be somewhere in the top 10.
And of course my number one enemy was the procedural error. Again, if you are trying to "respond to the course" rather than "play the game" you are going to have these procedural errors. And here I am talking about things like walk around this side of the barrel instead of that side. It's the same time penalty as falling down on your ass but isn't the same level of error in terms of competent moving and shooting. There are of course some procedural errors which are constant. For example if you shoot a "no shoot" target that is a biggie and it doesn't matter how well you do or don't "play the game" that is a fail that counts against what you are trying to achieve.
Again I must stress there was nothing WRONG with Robs carbine club. They actually ran some pretty inventive drills that required practice of uncommon skills. The fact that some shooters were there to "play a shooting game" has no bearing on the training available, anyone could have just as easily adopted a more realistic mindset to the training as many of the shooters (including many of the regular high scorers) do. Some win because they are good and practiced, some win because they are good at the game. Had I lived closer and the time been more compatible to my schedule, I would still be a regular attendee with slower engagement times and procedural errors.
Thankfully I am a member of a private range which I have 24 hour access to. All manner of scenario shooting is possible and we can work the range in station to station drills. We can duplicate a wide variety of structures with large moving walls which completely obscure all targets you will encounter. As we set up targets for each other none of us knows how many targets we will be engaging or where they are.
Scenarios where multiple targets from behind multiple covers come into view almost simultaneously keep you on your toes, especially when they are not on similar lines of sight. Turn out the lights and run the drills with weapon lights only adds a whole new environment.
Then there are things like "partner" drills where you work with a second shooter. Over the last couple years we have actually become pretty inventive with some of the scenarios and drills, though most essentially fall back on the basics of moving and shooting. Things like ninja rolls and engagement of 6 or more "armed" targets in a single stage are pretty unrealistic.
And that is where the mindset you mentioned comes into play. If you treat your shooting practice as preparation for a real situation where you will be required to adapt to it as it happens, I consider that a serious shooter.
I also see some people use the phrase "it's not a weapon for a serious gun user" or that's a "bubba" gun. Usually talking about Kimbers, Bushmasters, 556's, XD's etc etc. But what if the people who are using said weapons meet the criteria for a shooter or a serious gun user as decribed in this thread? Are they not a "serious gun user" if they are using the above guns and they perform to their standards?
What if you are a serious and accomplished race car driver who has decided to use a VW Beetle?
I have all kinds of guns. There are ones I have because they are rare, there are ones I have that are neat, and there are ones that I would use if my life depended upon it.
If I select a Hi Point carbine for personal defense, that does show a lack of judgment on my part. And it would make me a "less serious" shooter.
For example, I have a XCR. I think it is a brilliantly designed rifle. I enjoy shooting it and I have never had a single malfunction and the accuracy is "acceptable." That said, I understand it is still a "unproven" rifle so it is way down on my list of firearms I would select for personal defense.
What if you are a serious and accomplished race car driver who has decided to use a VW Beetle?
Well, I might like the styling and handling of the Beetle. Afterall, all I need it to do is get from point A to B on a public roadway. I'm not taking it to the racetrack. :D
theblackknight
03-21-11, 19:22
http://themetapicture.com/media/OK-Ethel-youre-on-point-funny-robot-grandma.jpg
Well, I might like the styling and handling of the Beetle. Afterall, all I need it to do is get from point A to B on a public roadway. I'm not taking it to the racetrack. :D
And that is kinda the point.
If all you are doing is going from A to B, you can use ANY car. If you are choosing a serious vehicle for speed your choice makes a difference.
Similarly, if all you are doing is making bang noises and punching paper, you can use ANY gun. But if you are choosing a gun for a "serious application" such as a defensive tool your choice makes a difference.
Again, I own a XCR. So far I have zero bad things to say about it. In fact I love it as a recreational firearm. I think the design is brilliant. But I KNOW it has not been seriously tested and I factor that in. I seriously wish it would have undergone military trials because that usually results in all manner of design and production improvements.
And with that development you can arrive at a "reliable" firearm. And that is the difference between Colt and DPMS, the AUG and the MSAR, the Glock and the XD and the 550/551 and the 556.
Now it's not that the DPMS, MSAR, XD and 556 are Hi Points, they just aren't the same as their true military counterparts. And just as I'm sure you recognize the distinction between the XD and the Hi Point, many shooters recognize a similar distinction between the XD and a Glock.
And that is because when it comes to firearm selection for serious applications, it is like taking a car to the racetrack. And if you show up with a VW you are going to have problems. Choose the wrong firearm to bet your life on and that is even worse than bringing the wrong car to a race.
And that is kinda the point.
I uderstood your point, that's why I said that. ;)
If all you are doing is going from A to B, you can use ANY car. If you are choosing a serious vehicle for speed your choice makes a difference.
Similarly, if all you are doing is making bang noises and punching paper, you can use ANY gun. But if you are choosing a gun for a "serious application" such as a defensive tool your choice makes a difference.
True. But a lot of people are perfectly happy with their XD's, Kimbers and Bushmasters. They work for their speed. So why talk or look down upon them for what works for them?
I know a lot of "shooters" and SWAT guys who are issued Bushmasters and Kimbers. Those guns work for them and they are happy with their choice, so does that make them a less of a "serious gun user" or less "high speed?"
Again, I own a XCR. So far I have zero bad things to say about it. In fact I love it as a recreational firearm. I think the design is brilliant. But I KNOW it has not been seriously tested and I factor that in. I seriously wish it would have undergone military trials because that usually results in all manner of design and production improvements.
And with that development you can arrive at a "reliable" firearm. And that is the difference between Colt and DPMS, the AUG and the MSAR, the Glock and the XD and the 550/551 and the 556.
Now it's not that the DPMS, MSAR, XD and 556 are Hi Points, they just aren't the same as their true military counterparts. And just as I'm sure you recognize the distinction between the XD and the Hi Point, many shooters recognize a similar distinction between the XD and a Glock.
I know the difference between Colt/DPMS or a Glock/XD etc. I'm not a noob. ;) Nor am I trying to say that they are all "just as good as" the others.
I don't and won't own an XD, DPMS, Kimber etc. Like you, I choose to carry weapons that have proven themselves through .mil use. My duty rifle is LMT/KAC and my pistols are SIGs. They are proven designs, and more importantly, they have proven to work for me. Hell, I've used KAC products for years, even back when the weren't en vogue, and when everybody would bitch about the company for various reasons. It reminds me a lot of the SIG threads now...:D
Another thing to point out is that there are a lot of shooters on this board that do not carry "military proven" firearms such as the M&P or BCM's. Both are quality weapons, but since they aren't .mil tested do you lump them into the same category as the Bushmasters and XD's?
And that is because when it comes to firearm selection for serious applications, it is like taking a car to the racetrack. And if you show up with a VW you are going to have problems. Choose the wrong firearm to bet your life on and that is even worse than bringing the wrong car to a race.
I'm right there with you, but like I stated earlier, some people don't have the need, want or capablility to spend the money on the best or latest and greatest. An XD is not going to disenegrate in someones hand the moment that they pull it out for that VERY slim chance they will have to use it to defend themselves. Are the odds a little better that a Glock, SIG or M&P would work during that moment? Yes. But if the XD explodes during that moment, and they're still breathing afterward, then they better buy a lotto ticket.
All I'm trying to say here is that I can see where a lot of attitudes and derogatory comments that are displayed by a few on the board can turn new shooters off. We have all been the newbie at one time and started shooting with "just as good as" equipment.
There are lots of people that use their gear choice to look down on others. That applies to all hobbies and interests though, so acting like it's something new here, or that it's going to change because of a series of equally snide posts on the internut is kind of silly. When I rode a Sportster I had to listen to the fatoldguy contingent tell me it was a girl's bike (and then try to keep up). Go hang out on a golf course and watch the douchebags that think their better clubs make them a better person. Any interest where human males congregate there is a perceived need to be the "best" and if they can't actually *be* the best they'll just *buy* the best.
That said, I think you're over-characterizing the members of this site and painting with too broad a brush. I see VERY little outright, uninvited, bashing here. But people also aren't going to tolerate bullshit, or suffer fools lightly. Come here and tell us about your Olympic Arms that you staked and reamed and has 7,000 rounds with a variety of uses after the last year and you're likely to get some grudging respect. Tell us about the Del-Ton that you over-paid for, dragged through the Crapco catalog, and have 200 benchrest rounds through, AND try to tell us that it's all so much better than guns & parts costing more and you're going to get some grief.
With the church security team I co-mentor, we use targets with teenagers faces on them. Why? Because a good many of the active shooters in this country are teens so you might as well get comfortable with shooting them.
Do you have to lead them more? I can't get them to think about what and who they post on the new website the church has. And here you have them thinking. Can I come to church with you?
John_Wayne777
03-22-11, 07:30
It reminds me a lot of the SIG threads now...:D
The major point you are missing here is that gun companies, like any other company you can name, are not static entities. They are living entities. The quality of the product they offer varies considerably over time, as can the support provided for the product.
It would be one thing if there's just one dude out there saying shit...but when lots of people in lots of places are saying the exact same thing based on personal familiarity with issues ranging from individual weapons that don't work out of the box to agencies who have big boatloads of weapons that don't work, it's no longer one dude off his rocker...it's a trend. It may be reversed one day and things may go back to normal, but for now it is what it is.
Some products are objectively a better shot at producing a good outcome for the consumer at the moment than others. Holding that simple fact to be true doesn't turn somebody into a poser or a douchebag or somebody who thinks he's the civilian equivalent to Delta. The information is out there and it has been referenced on numerous occasions, but that's never good enough for some folks.
Note that your call-out has received a generally very polite response, so thankfully I haven't had to clean up a train wreck or ban anyone yet.
montanadave
03-22-11, 08:07
we use targets with teenagers faces on them
Shooting teenagers? I might even show up at a church to get in on some of that action. :lol:
I also see some people use the phrase "it's not a weapon for a serious gun user" or that's a "bubba" gun. Usually talking about Kimbers, Bushmasters, 556's, XD's etc etc. But what if the people who are using said weapons meet the criteria for a shooter or a serious gun user as decribed in this thread? Are they not a "serious gun user" if they are using the above guns and they perform to their standards?
There is a reason for this. People "in the know" (if given a choice) WOULD NOT CHOOSE certain firearms to bet their lives on. The problem with the above (which is played out on the net over and over) is that there are VERY FEW people in the "know."
There are also "serious gun users" out there (otherwise known as "trigger pullers"), that really don't know anything other than what Uncle Sugar hands them. They couldn't tell you anything about the weapon, if it was built correctly or not or even know what to look for.
The "serious gun users" that I look up to as mentors have the following characteristics:
1. Know the complete history of most every combat firearm made, to include knowledge of where one manufacturer copied another manufacturer’s idea and applied it to their weapon.
2. Can shoot at a world class level.
3. Is a combat veteran.
4. Can analyze a malfunction and diagnose it down to the faulty part.
5. Understands how a weapon "works" at an engineering level.
6. Can spot a design flaw in a gun a mile away.
C4
True. But a lot of people are perfectly happy with their XD's, Kimbers and Bushmasters. They work for their speed. So why talk or look down upon them for what works for them?
Ignorance is bliss. All firearms work sitting in the closet or in the back of the cruiser. People that go out and shoot A LOT are the ones that break guns and find the flaws. They then base their opinion on said lessons learned.
I personally, don't care what weapon a person CHOOSES to buy (their money). Where the rubber meets the road is when they buy a KNOWN less quality weapon (to defend themselves with) which is the same price of a better quality weapon (or within $50-$100 bucks). Then come onto the net to proclaim their weapons superiority.
I know a lot of "shooters" and SWAT guys who are issued Bushmasters and Kimbers. Those guns work for them and they are happy with their choice, so does that make them a less of a "serious gun user" or less "high speed?"
Cops are some of the most ignorant shooters I come across in my business. Very few EVER impress me with their weapon knowledge or shooting ability. Cops also tend to shoot very low round counts with their weapons. As I said, all weapon run great when slung over your shoulder.
There are exceptions to the above rule (many on here apply) and I fully understand that it is hard to train when your Dept./SO doesn't have any money for training ammo or over time.
I'm right there with you, but like I stated earlier, some people don't have the need, want or capablility to spend the money on the best or latest and greatest. An XD is not going to disenegrate in someones hand the moment that they pull it out for that VERY slim chance they will have to use it to defend themselves. Are the odds a little better that a Glock, SIG or M&P would work during that moment? Yes. But if the XD explodes during that moment, and they're still breathing afterward, then they better buy a lotto ticket.
I understand about being poor and having to save my pennies JUST to buy a used firearm. Men are horrible "impulse" buyers. This causes them to make VERY poor decisions without any common sense applied.
I do not view owning an XD as the "end of the world", but would put it towards the bottom of the list behind HK, Glock, M&P and even FN.
All I'm trying to say here is that I can see where a lot of attitudes and derogatory comments that are displayed by a few on the board can turn new shooters off. We have all been the newbie at one time and started shooting with "just as good as" equipment.
My first AR was a RRA. My second AR was a BM. I wish to GOD that I would have seen something like Rob's "Chart" or knew who Ken Hackathorn was before I bought my first pistol (Taurus 92 clone). :sarcastic:
All guns ended up being sold for something better as my knowledge grew. I sure wish that I wouldn't have wasted my money on them.
So to me, people need to get a thicker skin and realize that there are people that have FORGOTTEN more about guns and gear than they will ever know and to listen closely to their advice (because at the end of they, they will have saved money and bought a more reliable weapon).
C4
Do you have to lead them more? I can't get them to think about what and who they post on the new website the church has. And here you have them thinking. Can I come to church with you?
LOL, I belong to a very common sense oriented church that understands that we live in a place where bad people come into churches and kill innocent people.
Come on over to my church, we would love to have you. ;)
C4
The major point you are missing here is that gun companies, like any other company you can name, are not static entities. They are living entities. The quality of the product they offer varies considerably over time, as can the support provided for the product.
It would be one thing if there's just one dude out there saying shit...but when lots of people in lots of places are saying the exact same thing based on personal familiarity with issues ranging from individual weapons that don't work out of the box to agencies who have big boatloads of weapons that don't work, it's no longer one dude off his rocker...it's a trend. It may be reversed one day and things may go back to normal, but for now it is what it is.
Some products are objectively a better shot at producing a good outcome for the consumer at the moment than others. Holding that simple fact to be true doesn't turn somebody into a poser or a douchebag or somebody who thinks he's the civilian equivalent to Delta. The information is out there and it has been referenced on numerous occasions, but that's never good enough for some folks.
Note that your call-out has received a generally very polite response, so thankfully I haven't had to clean up a train wreck or ban anyone yet.
Preach it!
SIG has run into a wall over the last couple years. Luckily they acknowledged it (in a private meeting) and have basically asked for help.
I own a SIG 225 (P6) and love the gun. Sig's are cool guns and have a lot of things going for them, but I would only buy an older one at this point in time.
C4
Shooting teenagers? I might even show up at a church to get in on some of that action. :lol:
LOL, hey if that is what it takes to get you into church then.....
C4
In re-reading some of this, there appears to me to be a contradiction in the OP and subsequent posts.
How does one determine "good enough"? It seems to be what's being advocated for.
I'm right there with you, but like I stated earlier, some people don't have the need, want or capablility to spend the money on the best or latest and greatest.
Again, if all you are doing is punching paper and making bang noises, no problem. If you are selecting tools to bet your life on, you get the best ones you reasonably can. And if you can get a XD, you can get a Glock. If you can get a DPMS, you can get a Colt. And if you can get a 556 or MSAR, you can get a Colt cheaper in most cases.
It's not like Glocks and Colts are $3k or anything.
Sure a Bushmaster or DPMS can be a few bills cheaper, but the savings isn't dramatic enough if intended for serious use.
Now if you are some guy who had to save up to buy a Taurus and a SKS, that is what you can afford and you might have to make due. Circumstances means you sometimes work with what you are given. But that is not the same as coming here and talking about how your Taurus and SKS is just as good as a Glock and a Colt.
And if a person uses a Bushmaster or a XD, you are right, it probably won't disintegrate. And nobody is really going to have an issue with it so long as they don't make unrealistic comparisons to firearms with a proven track record (and I think that is really the key issue here).
Some of us may wonder why a person would "choose" to go with a DPMS or a XD when they could have easily gotten a proven system, but beyond mentioning that more reliable systems exist (in the off chance the person was unaware) nobody really cares. At least not until somebody starts trying to claim a DPMS is actually better than the Colt or something along those lines. And that is important not because we all own stock in Colt Defense, but because this forum is about reliable information that people use to make important decisions.
And nobody wants some "new guy" to buy a DPMS or 556 because he "believed" it was the best money could buy when he could have just as easily bought a Colt and had a far superior firearm.
Shooting teenagers? I might even show up at a church to get in on some of that action. :lol:
LOL.
"You're doing God's work Skater McGee!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYAZno_CXKY&feature=related
I think the literal definition is adequate. You can accumulate guns all day, but putting thought into their use is where the line in the sand is drawn. One does not need to be good, bad, grand master high priest, or anything else, there just needs to be the careful thought and planning.
How does one determine "good enough"?
Oh lord...
The major point you are missing here is that gun companies, like any other company you can name, are not static entities. They are living entities. The quality of the product they offer varies considerably over time, as can the support provided for the product.
It would be one thing if there's just one dude out there saying shit...but when lots of people in lots of places are saying the exact same thing based on personal familiarity with issues ranging from individual weapons that don't work out of the box to agencies who have big boatloads of weapons that don't work, it's no longer one dude off his rocker...it's a trend. It may be reversed one day and things may go back to normal, but for now it is what it is.
JW, I'm not missing any point and get what you're saying. The thing is, people act like you have a 50/50 chance of getting a new SIG Classic that works, and that's not the case. You know and I know, the trend is that QC has dipped in the last year or two with almost every handgun manufacture. Glock has problems, S&W has issues and so does SIG. There has been lots of people that complain about getting a crappy Glock or M&P, and there are several agencies that have had several problems with both brands too. It's just not limited to SIG. Does that make any of them bad? No. EVERY gun manufacture puts out lemons, sometimes from spotty QC, faulty batch of parts or maybe they were built by some disgruntled employee.
Just because I speak about my experiences, doesn't make me blind to the fact that there are QC issues at SIG.In my experience, I have seen more problems with the M&P's, Glocks than I have with H&K's and SIGs. That's a fact for me. It may be different for someone else, and that's OK. It doesn't make either of us right or wrong. All I am doing is talking about my dealings with certain firearms.
You say that I don't listen to random people on the net. True to some extent, because I rely on my first hand experience before anybody elses. It's like several strangers walking into my home and saying that they saw a ghost, but in the years that I have been living there I haven't seen one.
Which brings up another point. I keep on reading about, from a few select people, that there are a lot agencies that have have had "tons" of problems with new SIGs. I haven't seen the proof. Today, I honestly tried every google search that I could think of to see if I can find info on a ton of Classic series SIGs shitting the bed at an agency, just to make sure that I am not far out in left field about this. Usually there is some memo that is leaked or passed between agencies and ends up on the net. I turned up nothing. All I found was info about M&P's and Glocks being de-authorized at a couple of agencies and the authorized again when the company adressed the problems.
I'm all ears and willing to learn. If anybody has first hand info, not I heard this from my best buddies cousin, or if you have links from the net written by agency memo or instructor, please PM them to me if you have the time. I would love to take a look at it.
Again, I'm not saying that SIG hasn't had more issues as of late, just that it has turned into something similar to the Glock "Kaboom" talk. Yes, it has and does happen, but it happens a lot less than people tend to lead on about, in my opinion.
Note that your call-out has received a generally very polite response, so thankfully I haven't had to clean up a train wreck or ban anyone yet.
I don't know exactly what you mean buy a "call-out," but I do appreciate the responses that I have received.
.
I bought my first AR when my Son was in the USMC in Iraq. Instead of going online to learn how to disassemble it, I told him I would wait until he came home on leave in 1-months. Now for that month, I was gleaning info from TOS, gun shops, (and worse places) to learn the who, what, when, where and why about AR’s. I was starting to get a pretty base understanding but I still hadn’t tried to disassemble my rifle.
My Son comes home and one evening, I pull out the DPMS and wait for his instruction. I just watched and held my questions until right after he put the Bolt back into the Bolt Carrier and puts in the Pin, he slings the BCG out to the side and starts to insert it into the upper. I say, “Wait…why did you sling it out like that?” He said, “I don’t know…they just told us to.”
I couldn’t believe he did not know “Why”. I went back to each step he showed me and asked him “why” and he really had no clue, just kept repeating "that’s what they told us to do". Now, he wasn't some kid with 10-thumbs or a 80 IQ, he owned and has shot a variety of guns, hunted, worked with hand tools, power tools, bikes, cars, etc. and made great grades all through school.
It just really upset me that he went into harm’s way and just knew the bare minimum of how his rifle functioned. So, being the overbearing Dad that I am, I sat him down for my AR-101 explaining to him what I knew about how things worked and why!
Now, he was a “gun user” in a “serious” situation but I do not think he was a “serious gun user”. He knew all of the parts, how to disassemble and reassemble but he only learned enough to get some hollering DI off his back. He would not have been able to troubleshoot his rifle, he kept the BCG dry, lined the Gas rings up, had no spare parts, etc. If he had problems, he basically was dependent on someone else to keep his gun running.
So, I think the “serious gun user” is someone that knows the theory, mechanics, maintenance for the gun he is using AND adequately knows how to safely and readily operate the gun. Simply stated, a “serious gun user” is a person that develops a balance of knowledge and ability with each gun they use.
But maybe it’ s just me…
.
Cops are some of the most ignorant shooters I come across in my business. Very few EVER impress me with their weapon knowledge or shooting ability. Cops also tend to shoot very low round counts with their weapons. As I said, all weapon run great when slung over your shoulder.
There are exceptions to the above rule (many on here apply) and I fully understand that it is hard to train when your Dept./SO doesn't have any money for training ammo or over time.
I agree with you. 95% of LEO's aren't "gun people." The SWAT guys that I was talking about aren't from my agency. They are actually a very well funded 20+ man team who are pretty active, and do shoot quite a bit.
Budgets are shrinking, but I am lucky that I get to shoot as much as I want during my 2 hr time slot for quals. When I get to spend my whole shift out at the range doing RSO duty, it's even better. :D
My first AR was a RRA. My second AR was a BM. I wish to GOD that I would have seen something like Rob's "Chart" or knew who Ken Hackathorn was before I bought my first pistol (Taurus 92 clone). :sarcastic:
C4
My first AR was a 14.5" Bushy with an "AK Brake" that was pinned from the factory. People on each side of me at the range loved it! :p
SIG has run into a wall over the last couple years. Luckily they acknowledged it (in a private meeting) and have basically asked for help.
I guess that explains why SIG just sent out a mass email listing job openings for everything from cs rep to machinists? :eek:
variablebinary
03-23-11, 03:38
S-1, if your posts weren't so often inflammatory/retaliatory, I think people would take this thread a little more seriously.
You don't say...
Obviously, I wasn't the only one that knew what the this thread was really about...like this gem...
Comparing a SIG Classic Series to a Bushmaster, is, well dumb in my opinion. No offense to you, but if we're making comparisons such as that, then we can make them about other brands/models.
If a SIG P-Series = Bushmaster, then Glocks = Olympic Arms, then M&P's = Vulcan/Model 1's.
Obviously, I wasn't the only one that knew what the this thread was really about...like this gem...
Trolling again?
I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
variablebinary
03-23-11, 04:07
Trolling again?
I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
Quoting you is trolling? Do you not agree with yourself?
Quoting you is trolling? Do you not agree with yourself?
Why would you quote me from another thread?
Last time someone did that to you, you questioned why. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=75066&page=3&highlight=HK416 So yes, you're trolling.
ETA... I'll just ask to have this locked down. Obviously you have some issues with what I say and it goes down hill from there.
I guess for me at least one sign of a serious gun user is someone who doesn't cut corners when it comes to weapons and gear that may save his life.
Someone who spends the time to know his weapons and equipment as well and makes an effort to be as proficient as possible.
variablebinary
03-23-11, 04:28
Why would you quote me from another thread?
Last time someone did that to you, you through a hissy fit.
This was a closet "why SIG is just as good" thread and more than one person picked up on it from the jump. Also, you do in fact have a history of inflammatory/retaliatory commentary because you have trouble with the notion that the XD and SIG 556 are not good products. This in addition to SIG USA not being a good company anymore.
Now I don't like the fact that Mike Tyson is no longer a great fighter, but I don't rant and rave and engage in personal attacks because of this fact after others state it.
The XD is a turd. Sounds harsh, but after hundreds of threads trying to educate people with long expositions, and poetic, fact backed threads on why the XD is a turd, you eventually end up with simple explanations that are easy to digest, and either someone accepts that or they don't.
What for sure wont happen is M4C will never be a place for garbage firearms apologists. It is what it is.
How many times have SME's Mods, and industry experts on this very forum told you the XD and 556 are crap, and you still don't care, which is a prime example of why the only way they can really get their point across is with a sledgehammer (infractions, locked threads, banning, timeouts).
SNIP
Chill out dude. I don't even own an XD or 556 nor do I care to.
You are the the main culprit of bagging on people for having "just as good as" weapons that I mentioned in this thread. Instead of putting things nicely or educating, you respond with snide and deragatory comments.
If you would take it down a notch or ten, as many people have told you, maybe they would feel differently about your posts.
ETA... If I deserve a ban, then maybe they should take a hard look at you too.
Enough of the trolling comments and tit for tat. Take it to a PM and let this thread continue.
The OP has requested closure, and so shall it be.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.