View Full Version : _________ is a crutch for accuracy?
I have read several threads on here, and elsewhere about certain handgun choices are simply crutches for accuracy.
Mostly it deals with 1911s since it is pretty well know there have been significant advances in handgun technology in the past 100 years. However the 1911 does have great ergonomics, and nice triggers which is part of its popularity.
Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".
Does one have to be able to shoot a Sigma, VP70Z, or AMT Backup accurately at 25 yards?
Does lightening the trigger pull beyond X lbs make it a crutch?
If someone shoots a particular gun extremely well, but not others as well does that mean they are simply using that gun as a crutch?
Just thinking about this because I got another used 92FS over a NIB G17RTF2 yesterday even though they were the same price. I use both as carry guns, but I got another Beretta because I shoot the 92 series so well. I can shoot Glocks pretty good, but never as good as a 92. I just have a little bit of buyers remorse since the Beretta weighs more, requires more maintenance, and some parts are just a PITA to change. However, I absolutely love shooting the 92, have lots of magazines, and no other handgun comes close in the accuracy department for me.
So could it be considered I'm using the 92 series as a "crutch" for my handgun accuracy, or is it considered to stick with what you are the most accurate with?
(Not trying to come off as a prick, genuinely curious about this concept).
I'd say carry whatever you shoot best. The only time i'd knock a guy for carrying anything different is if it was a reliability or safety hazard. 1911's and super light triggers can each posses these qualities. ;)
This invokes the expression of "gear as crutch." To me, the expression means it is folly for a person to spend money on upgrades or snake oil in lieu of training and practice. And honestly speaking there is no substitute for good training and good practice. People buy gear because they can show it off and if need be sell it off. Training and practice are time, effort, and money that are invested to gain/improve a skill. They can't be sold off or shown off the same way one might do with a physical item.
Does one have to be able to shoot a Sigma, VP70Z, or AMT Backup accurately at 25 yards?
Generally speaking, people are not going to have to hit at 50 yards or better with a pistol. If you are military, ideally you are going to have a long gun. If you're a civilian (including law enforcement) most of your engagements will take place well within 50 yards. That said, you had better able to hit accurately at 50 yards or better with a pistol. The reason I say this is that it all comes down to basics. People with solid basics can use a pistol to hit a 25 yard (or longer) shot. The weaker your basics, the harder it is to hit at longer distances. Writing off a 25 yard shot with a handgun is essentially writing off the fundamentals.
If you can hit the longer shots reliably, the closer shots should be even easier. Unless a person's vision is failing and he or she needs glasses (that are not being worn), it is entirely possible (albeit challenging) to hit a plate at a 100 yards with a pistol so doing so at 25 yards isn't really much to brag about. It is not unfair to expect someone to be able to accurately place a shot on center of mass with a pistol at 25 yards. I'd say that is a bare minimum standard. -Go through Larry Vickers' Pistol I course if you want to learn about why accuracy is very important.
Does lightening the trigger pull beyond X lbs make it a crutch?
If someone shoots a particular gun extremely well, but not others as well does that mean they are simply using that gun as a crutch?
Lightening a trigger pull or making an action sweet can make sense up to a point, but you run into some problems in the real world. Too light and you run the risks of reliability issues and unintentional discharge. There are things people do with competition firearms because the biggest consequences they face are losing a match or being DQ'd from a match. I'd say if you are serious about shooting, you should have the skills to be reliably accurate with any decent quality, stock firearm you pick up. It's nice to have your favorite that is your everyday carry. However, if you know what you are doing, you should be able to hit accurately in the black whether you are using a tricked out 1911 or a stock Glock or whatever. The whole "prima donna" routine of a person can only be expected to be good with his pistol of choice is silly. Again, a LAV course can disabuse you of the notion you only have to be competent with your preferred type of pistol.
It's an entirely personal choice. Too often the phrase is used to bash someone over the head rather than encourage them to get training.
I used the 1911 as a crutch for years, and if certain circumstances were the same I still wood, and very likely will again. I still sucked with it, I just sucked less. :sarcastic:
Idealistically I'd like to get to the range each week, dryfire every day, do 500 presentations from my holster a week, cycle my carry ammo at some known interval, etc. But it just doesn't happen. So if I can use one handgun better given the limitations of my reality, is it wrong to do so? Again, idealistically yes, or as a way to justify the hours spent at the range and dryfire for some people yet, but that has to be weighed against real life.
and either way, what someone else chooses to carry or shoot shouldn't be an issue.
In-particular for the 1911 it's out of favor again with some of the younger instructors, which means that it's out of favor with their parrots and Moonies. Which again is their problem, not yours or mine.
Glocks are my crutch for lackadasical maintenance habits. ;)
92FS is a perfectly fine choice IMO.
Is my automatic transmission a crutch for my lack of fundamental driving skills ?
Or is it just an easier way for me to reach my end goals ?
Or when someone says the 1911 is a crutch ask them if there 9mm is crutch to cover up their recoil managment flaws.
I bought into that stuff for a little while, really did. Sounded like it made sense. And Im always looking to improve and challenge myself. That and some other factors and I went froma 1911 to a M&P45. 2nd or 3rd trip to the range and I shot my best score on "the hack" to date, a 280, its such a stars alighned moment I dont even really like to tell anyone I shot that as Im normally in the 250 range. It wasnt the gun though. It was because I wasnt shooting for score, I was shooting paying attention ;) and trying to get acclimated to the new gun.
The M&P I had wasnt living up to my reliability expectations, so I went to a Hk P30 LEM. Right out the gate I look a advanced Vickers pistol class first week with the gun (of course people told me I was nuts) and shot just as well as I normally do. Came home and shot a 620 on the 700 aggregate.
So now Im a guy who spent the majority of his serious pistol shooting on a 1911, shooting striker fired and double action guns just as well as I shot "the crutch".
So its my feeling, from my personal experiance, that those who are covering up major flaws wont be shooting that well to begin with as I dont feel you can really cover up serious flaws with any gun (or else everyone would, and should, shoot that gun). You may be able to mask or take the edge off some errors though. But if you get quality initial training, hold yourself to high standards, and work on the fundamentals then its not going to matter (much) what hardware your using.
Good friend of mine and shooting buddy is a Master class IPSC shooter, great guy and hands down the best all around shooter I personally know. I asked him one day some time ago about how he shoots a 2011 in USPSA, a GLOCK in IDPA, and carrys a 1911. Dont you have trouble switching plaforms, grip angles, triggers, controls, ect ect ect ? I asked. "They all have sights and a trigger."
FWIW Im shooting a GLOCK now, great gun.
Shawn1911shooteratheart.L
John_Wayne777
04-29-11, 07:13
Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".
If someone is using a 1911 because they have poor trigger control habits and the only way they can get anything approaching acceptable hits on a target is by using a big heavy gun with a light trigger that moves straight back into the grip, then it could accurately be described as a "crutch".
If they're content at that level, that's fine. It is, after all, a personal choice.
It only gets silly when people insist that you can't hit anything with a Glock because they can't hit anything with a Glock.
If someone simply prefers the 1911 or if they find that they have a significant advantage in the use of the pistol over something else...and if they are willing to do what it takes to get a reliable 1911 and keep it running...then that's fine. What I encounter on a regular basis are people who are using the 1911 because they suck the least with it and they've formed very definite opinions on very bad data. Then they spread that on the internet, where bad advice and ideas seem to have the robustness of malaria.
Beat Trash
04-29-11, 07:20
Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".
Just thinking about this because I got another used 92FS over a NIB G17RTF2 yesterday even though they were the same price. I use both as carry guns, but I got another Beretta because I shoot the 92 series so well. I can shoot Glocks pretty good, but never as good as a 92. I just have a little bit of buyers remorse since the Beretta weighs more, requires more maintenance, and some parts are just a PITA to change. However, I absolutely love shooting the 92, have lots of magazines, and no other handgun comes close in the accuracy department for me.
Don't sweat it. And don't worry about your decision and having buyers remorse.
For a defensive handgun, one needs a reliable platform, in an adequate caliber. After that, it's all on the shooter to use good tactics and to have the appropriate skill to put rounds on target fast enough. You can't go to a gun store and buy skill and good tactics.
You pick the Beretta 92 fs, going into the decision with your eyes open. You are aware of the faults of the design (size, weight, increase maintenance) but are willing to work with them. For that reason alone, I commend your choice.
The bottom line is that the gun works for you. I will never speak ill of an individual who's choice of carry gun was made after much thought and research.
I get annoyed with those who refuse to put forth any effort to do any research, or test any guns for themselves. They clog the airways with polls and posts asking which gun should I buy. To me it's like starting a poll in which the individual is about to move out of their mother's basement and plan on losing their virginity. They then start a poll asking "Which mail order bride should I buy, Blond or redhead?".
Even more annoying are those who chose a gun such as the Beretta 92fs and refuse to admit there any faults with the design. When someone tries to point out any of these faults, they instantly resort to insults such as "Glockboys". These types generally are the ones who would never dream of shelling out money on a training class, or ammunition. God forbid their new safe queen should get dirty!
I really like the Beretta 92fs. I own two. I personally prefer the M&P9 and the Glock 19 for a carry gun. But I'm not you. You gave very sound reasons why you prefer the Beretta 92 vs. the Glock 17 for a carry gun. Enjoy you new gun....
Failure2Stop
04-29-11, 07:36
Sights and trigger control are the only "crutches" when it comes to pistol marksmanship. If someone does extremely well with one platform but sucks with another, I would question what their definition of "acceptable" is. If one has problems when moving from a 1911 to another platform (especially TDA or DA only), it's simply a problem with trigger control.
I have never met a person that, in a standardized and demanding setting, will perform well with one full sized pistol and suck with another.
Introduce a vastly different platform (such as going from a quality 1911 to a J-frame), and there will most certainly be an issue in the precision department, but really it comes down to the fact that the trigger feels vastly different (making trigger control more difficult) and the sights are lacking (making acceptable sight deviation and precise alignment more difficult to gauge, especially at speed).
Further, I don't think that there are many credible instructors or users out there that recommend against 1911s because they are a "crutch", but rather that they do not have a sterling reputation for robustness or ease of repair unless one has devoted a significant portion of one's life to mastering the maintenance and repair of that specific platform and getting magazines that actually work consistently. I was a die-hard 1911 fan, having spent easily 6k on 1911s and the work associated with them. I transitioned fully from the 1911 to a G23 with a few days of dedicated practice. The only real changes that needed to be made were work on wrist angle on presentation, prepping the trigger on presentation instead of just taking out the slack, and buying different holsters and mag pouches.
If someone simply prefers the 1911 or if they find that they have a significant advantage in the use of the pistol over something else...and if they are willing to do what it takes to get a reliable 1911 and keep it running...then that's fine. What I encounter on a regular basis are people who are using the 1911 because they suck the least with it and they've formed very definite opinions on very bad data. Then they spread that on the internet, where bad advice and ideas seem to have the robustness of malaria.
This is an important distinction in a lot of things.
Saying "I use a XYZ because I acknowledge I suck and need all the help I can get" is one thing. Saying "I use a XYZ and you should too because it's the best thing since sliced bread is quite another". The former statement really can't be argued with. The guy assessed his reality, assessed his needs and his limitations, and found the tool that worked best in that paradigm. The second is the kind of thing that should be avoided.
The A-Answers is always "Instruction, Training, and Practice", but these are not always realistic answers to the level that some people on the internut would lead others to believe.
I have never met a person that, in a standardized and demanding setting, will perform well with one full sized pistol and suck with another.
Another important distinction: "well" vs. "better". I know a LOT of people that perform better with what they are familiar with, or what is easier to shoot. None of them perform well per se, but if you hand them another gun they will do worse.
Good friend of mine and shooting buddy is a Master class IPSC shooter, great guy and hands down the best all around shooter I personally know. I asked him one day some time ago about how he shoots a 2011 in USPSA, a GLOCK in IDPA, and carrys a 1911. Dont you have trouble switching plaforms, grip angles, triggers, controls, ect ect ect ? I asked. "They all have sights and a trigger."
I think too many people compare themselves to these kinds of shooters, and set unrealistic goals based on same. It's like the single mother that works two jobs and spends 90% of her day on her ass trying to make a living and feed her kids comparing her body to Victoria Beckham's and thinking "damnit, I'm too fat". Different realities, different goals, different end-states.
For me personally, I shoot 1911's very well and seem to completely suck with the Glock I just bought. I wanted to like the Glock, I really did, the ergos just don't feel right to me. The grip angle seems off and I just can't shoot it well. Bought the thing less then two months ago and just can't get comfortable with it so now I need to sell it. On the flip side, I know friends that can't stand 1911's because they are heavy and don't like the physical safety on them. To each their own I suppose.
Lasers are the biggest crutch, and a bad one at that. Seems any time someone breaks out a pistol with a laser at the range they can barely hit the paper.
I couldn't care less if what I carried was considered a "crutch". I just want the most reliable weapon I can get that I'm still competent on.
Reliability eliminates the 1911 for me.
jmlshooter
04-29-11, 09:22
Last words of dead assailant:
"You had to use a crutch, though ... *gurgle gurgle*."
Last words of dead assailant:
"You had to use a crutch, though ... *gurgle gurgle*."
Last words of dead good-guy who could only shoot his own gun well and found himself with an unfamiliar firearm in his hands in the last seconds of his life:
"goddamnit! I shouldn't have relied on that crutch! *gurgle gurgle*."
:sarcastic:
Alaskapopo
04-29-11, 09:51
I have read several threads on here, and elsewhere about certain handgun choices are simply crutches for accuracy.
Mostly it deals with 1911s since it is pretty well know there have been significant advances in handgun technology in the past 100 years. However the 1911 does have great ergonomics, and nice triggers which is part of its popularity.
Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".
Does one have to be able to shoot a Sigma, VP70Z, or AMT Backup accurately at 25 yards?
Does lightening the trigger pull beyond X lbs make it a crutch?
If someone shoots a particular gun extremely well, but not others as well does that mean they are simply using that gun as a crutch?
Just thinking about this because I got another used 92FS over a NIB G17RTF2 yesterday even though they were the same price. I use both as carry guns, but I got another Beretta because I shoot the 92 series so well. I can shoot Glocks pretty good, but never as good as a 92. I just have a little bit of buyers remorse since the Beretta weighs more, requires more maintenance, and some parts are just a PITA to change. However, I absolutely love shooting the 92, have lots of magazines, and no other handgun comes close in the accuracy department for me.
So could it be considered I'm using the 92 series as a "crutch" for my handgun accuracy, or is it considered to stick with what you are the most accurate with?
(Not trying to come off as a prick, genuinely curious about this concept).
I believe in training but I will take any crutch I can get if it gives me an advantage over the SOB trying to kill me one day. However a good shooter is a good shooter and should be able to fire any handgun design well.
Pat
I couldn't care less if what I carried was considered a "crutch". I just want the most reliable weapon I can get that I'm still competent on.
Reliability eliminates the 1911 for me.
There we go.
Fundamentals are fundamentals. Some pistols are easier to shoot than others but at the end of the day, so long as you are not trying to foist your OPINIONS about reliability, shootability or your own "awesome" performance with the platform in question onto others, who cares?
I find that certain pistols MASK issues with fundamentals better than others but it is up to the individual to determine whether or not this is a real issue. To many, it is not and this is why not everyone is a crack shot.
A recent IDPA match was a bit of an eye opener in this regard. 80% of the people there were shooting 1911's and could barely hit the paper. The other shooters were using Glocks tricked out with two pound triggers yet could barely make any hits. When asked what gun i was shooting and what trigger i had i replied with a shrug of the shoulders and said a "G19 with a NY1 spring, its about a seven pound pull". Their faces scrunched up and several of them said "ew, why would you shoot that?"
It was a serious question and one that in hindsight i kind of laugh at. I push myself with a trigger like this to ensure that i practice my fundamentals 100% of the time. There is no getting lazy with this setup, there is no slapping the trigger and hoping that my grip and sight picture will allow me to get a solid hit. I have to be on the money, all the time.
Ultimately it comes down to a mindset, a willingness to dedicate ones self to the fundamentals. If you want to learn the basics of shooting a pistol and shooting it well you will transition to anything with a trigger and be ok with it. You might shoot some better than others because of body mechanics and design of the pistol but grip, stance, sight picture and pressing straight back to the rear always stays the same.
The only crutch in the shooting world is ego or a marked lack of desire to master the basics.
Business_Casual
04-29-11, 09:54
Does the described "better" include the DA stroke or just the SA?
B_C
If you've ever been in military service, or in law enforcement you master what you are given. I sucked at the M9 when I was first issued it, but with enough rounds downrange I mastered it and liked it a lot. Then I got in law enforcement, and was handed a Sig even though I was accustomed to the Beretta. With enough rounds downrange, I mastered the Sig and now prefer to use it over the M9. If you have the luxury to pick your equipment, find something that is reliable and you shoot well in timed and dynamic courses of fire and don't worry about it. There will always be pistols out there that you believe to be superior to what you are using, however the important element is that the longer you use a particular model of pistol the better gun fighter you will be.
Does the described "better" include the DA stroke or just the SA?
B_C
Good question. Im honestly not sure as i have very little time on true double action guns. I guess this admission might render my earlier points moot but...you be the judge. :)
If you've ever been in military service, or in law enforcement you master what you are given. I sucked at the M9 when I was first issued it, but with enough rounds downrange I mastered it and liked it a lot. Then I got in law enforcement, and was handed a Sig even though I was accustomed to the Beretta. With enough rounds downrange, I mastered the Sig and now prefer to use it over the M9. If you have the luxury to pick your equipment, find something that is reliable and you shoot well in timed and dynamic courses of fire and don't worry about it. There will always be pistols out there that you believe to be superior to what you are using, however the important element is that the longer you use a particular model of pistol the better gun fighter you will be.
Honest question, how do you master a pistol? Being able to perform a set list of drills on command perfectly every time?
Honest question, how do you master a pistol? Being able to perform a set list of drills on command perfectly every time?
The static drill helps with marksmenship, but it does little for tactics. Mastering a pistol, is being able to shoot it well at a variety of ranges, perform reloads quickly, and shoot quickly......while being able to do this two handed, strong hand, and weak hand. I try not to confuse firearms handing, with tactics. Utilizing cover/concealment, movement, charge/retreat,.....etc in my opinion is a separate subject. Why? because when it is all lumped together, tactics tend to get ignored in favor of marksmenship. This is especially true in LE training which focuses so much on the safety of a range that the valuable training repetition of tactics gets sidelined. Most of the time, tactics is more important than marksmanship, but meshing the two makes for a better package.
The only crutch in the shooting world is ego or a marked lack of desire to master the basics.
The desire is there, but the reality is not.
When I was younger, single, and had less responsibilities both in the world and in my job, everything was easy. Run off, go to the range, carry a fullsize gun all the time, and preach to everyone else that they should be doing the same. Now that I'm older, (basically) married, with a (step) kid and more responsibilities in both life and work, it's not so easy.
If, within that framework, there is a pistol I can shoot fast(er) and (more) accurately, then it may well be a crutch but it is one that the reality of the situation demands.
Unrelated to the above quote...
I see the "reliability" issue of the 1911 come up quite often, but typically from people with zero (or very near) actual experience with the platform, or who are parroting what their instructor du jour told them to think, or who lack the basic analytical skills or interest to see a problem and actually talk to the person with the problem and find out what it is.
At an IDPA state match several years ago one of the guys in our squad had problems with his 1911 on day one. Lots of snickers and "those dang unreliable 1911s" comments could be heard each time. At the end of the day I asked him if I could see his gun, took it apart, found a shok-buff, and threw that POS in the trash. Zero issues day two, but the damage was done and all the range experts had one more useless data point to fill their mental checklist.
The static drill helps with marksmenship, but it does little for tactics. Mastering a pistol, is being able to shoot it well at a variety of ranges, perform reloads quickly, and shoot quickly......while being able to do this two handed, strong hand, and weak hand. I try not to confuse firearms handing, with tactics. Utilizing cover/concealment, movement, charge/retreat,.....etc in my opinion is a separate subject. Why? because when it is all lumped together, tactics tend to get ignored in favor of marksmenship. This is especially true in LE training which focuses so much on the safety of a range that the valuable training repetition of tactics gets sidelined. Most of the time, tactics is more important than marksmanship, but meshing the two makes for a better package.
Funny how those old concepts of DVC and the Combat Triad address all of that so well.
Does the described "better" include the DA stroke or just the SA?
The DA shot in usually in the same hole as the other 14 rounds. It may hit in the 9 ring, but it is not a huge flyer. That said, I do not practice my DA as much as I should since you shoot SA much more with a DA/SA.
I do run a "D" spring & Wolff RP TCU in my Berettas, so my DA pull is in the 7.5-8lb range, and SA is around 4.5lbs.
My Glocks generally have the factory 3.5lb connector with standard coil for about a 4.5lb trigger pull.
Magic_Salad0892
04-29-11, 13:27
A crutch, is any gun that lets you be lazy. I'm talking carrying a race gun as a CCW. Or any of those folks who carry a 1911 with a 2.5 lbs. trigger, and integral compensator with 185 gr. .45 ACP, and the lightest recoil spring on planet Earth.
When shootability > reliability. That's when I use the word ''crutch''.
With practice I can shoot a SIG P228, or Colt S70 better than a Glock with ''-'' + NY1 setup. But the Glock is best for my defensive purpose, and I've gotten good enough with the trigger, grip, axis, etc. for it to be the best choice for me.
Oh. I can talk from experience, as I used to carry a very race gun esque Glock setup. (Internally)
That 1911s are unreliable thing - is bullshit. You can get a bone stock Colt S70 to run thousands of rounds properly. For less than $1200 sometimes.
But 1911s cost too much, weigh too much, don't hold enough bullets, etc.
IMO, they are outdated. But still a good gun. Unless you add a suppressor. That sucks.
F-Trooper05
04-29-11, 14:08
Something that drives me nuts is when guys get trigger jobs on guns they've spent absolutely no time training on. I don't mean just swapping out simple springs, but rather sending guns to people like Bruce Gray for $300. Take a friggin' class, master your gun's "bad trigger" and after all that if it still bothers you maybe get a trigger job.
I'm not sure I fully understand the concept of a "crutch" as discussed here.
IMHO there is no such thing as an unfair advantage in a gun fight. It a better barrel or trigger, type or ammo, etc makes me more accurate good for me. If a better trigger, ammo, caliber, etc allows for better accuracy, less recoil, and faster follow up shots then good for me. If a bevel or larger mag well, speeds up mag changes and larger capacity mags allow for more rounds expended between reloads then good for me. If I acknowledge my limitations and take advantage of mechanical or technological advancements to overcome them or increase my lethality than good for me.
If however I have failed to properly practice, don't realize or disregard my deficiencies, fail to prepare for the unexpected (malfunctions, being caught at a disadvantage, etc), etc than SHAME on me.
In a sense a weapon in general is designed and intended at the minimum to be a force equalizer and at best to create a disparity of force in favor of the wielder.
In general I don't think of any upgrade, etc as a "crutch" or a symptom of laziness, but as a feature to maximize my effectiveness (although the actual effectiveness of some "upgrades" could be argued). However, if I fail to train to reach my maximum potential then shame on me and perhaps then you could consider these a crutch. But it would seem the distinction would lie not in the type of upgrade, but in the mindset behind it.
All that being said I run a box stock G17 and run it well. :D
I also try and train with as generic of a manual of arms as possible (sling shotting the slide, etc) to hopefully reduce any issues with other makes of handguns as much as possible.
Magic_Salad0892
04-29-11, 15:52
I'm not sure I fully understand the concept of a "crutch" as discussed here.
Where people use a gun tailored to hide their own ineptness at handling a firearm.
Or use a gun that compensates for their lack of training.
These are some of my observations.
Everyone's preferences differ when it comes to pistols based on a wide range of factors ranging from small to significant. The size and weight of the pistol. The type trigger, the reset and the overall feel of the trigger. The size, feel and angle of the grip. These tend to be some of the larger ones. Safety vs. no safety, after market products, customer service from the parent company, location of the safety/cocker, location, size and type of slide release, etc. are some other factors.
Now we have preferences vs. what could be viewed as a crutch.
Developing good fundamentals will carry over from pistol to pistol. If you learn trigger control, sight alignment, proper grip and proper stance these will carry over with slight adjustments based on the style of pistol being used.
If you've developed good shooting skills and know your preferences and know what works best for you than rock on.
You might carry a 1911 for example because you just flat out can shoot it better than anything else. Then the bottom line when you get right down to it is this: Your carrying 7+1 and say two more seven round magazines. So you have 22 rounds on your person. So basically, when it you get right down to it, your 1911 needs to be go 22 rounds without malfunctioning. So if you keep it clean and lubricated with quality magazines it needs to fire 22 rounds in a save your life situation. Not a training class or in competition firing hundreds of rounds being pushed to the limit. Your carrying 22 rounds, correct? It needs to fire 22 rounds. If that is the gun that provides the best combination of accuracy, speed, comfort and confidence then remember...22 rounds.
Which is more wise given that you only have 22 rounds on your person in a potential life or death situation? To carry a pistol that offers better reliability at high round counts even though you can shoot something else better? Or to carry a pistol that lets you shoot your best even though it coughs up a lung at 500 rounds at which time it needs to be cleaned and lubrication?
I don't think I'm qualified to answer based on my complete lack of credentials but its food for thought.
These are some of my observations.
Everyone's preferences differ when it comes to pistols based on a wide range of factors ranging from small to significant. The size and weight of the pistol. The type trigger, the reset and the overall feel of the trigger. The size, feel and angle of the grip. These tend to be some of the larger ones. Safety vs. no safety, after market products, customer service from the parent company, location of the safety/cocker, location, size and type of slide release, etc. are some other factors.
Now we have preferences vs. what could be viewed as a crutch.
Developing good fundamentals will carry over from pistol to pistol. If you learn trigger control, sight alignment, proper grip and proper stance these will carry over with slight adjustments based on the style of pistol being used.
If you've developed good shooting skills and know your preferences and know what works best for you than rock on.
You might carry a 1911 for example because you just flat out can shoot it better than anything else. Then the bottom line when you get right down to it is this: Your carrying 7+1 and say two more seven round magazines. So you have 22 rounds on your person. So basically, when it you get right down to it, your 1911 needs to be go 22 rounds without malfunctioning. So if you keep it clean and lubricated with quality magazines it needs to fire 22 rounds in a save your life situation. Not a training class or in competition firing hundreds of rounds being pushed to the limit. Your carrying 22 rounds, correct? It needs to fire 22 rounds. If that is the gun that provides the best combination of accuracy, speed, comfort and confidence then remember...22 rounds.
Which is more wise given that you only have 22 rounds on your person in a potential life or death situation? To carry a pistol that offers better reliability at high round counts even though you can shoot something else better? Or to carry a pistol that lets you shoot your best even though it coughs up a lung at 500 rounds at which time it needs to be cleaned and lubrication?
I don't think I'm qualified to answer based on my complete lack of credentials but its food for thought.
Reliability is essential, because you may hit that 500rnd mark during your time of "need". Then you DON'T have 22rnds. You have whatever you have fired up until that point.
With the variety of makers and models on the market there is no reason to settle for sub par reliability. If your 1911 isn't reliable, make it so or find one that is. There are a metric ton of different ones on the market. If your striker fired pistol or DA/SA pistol is unreliable, then find one that is.
Preferences are fine. Find the type that you prefer. Then make sure it isn't going to crap the bed every 500rnds (or whatever number it may be). If it can't then fix it or replace it with another of the same or similar design that can. Then practice with it and MAINTAIN it to keep that reliability.
The above is like saying, my car dies if I drive more than 100 miles, but thats OK because I only commute 30 miles per day.
My example was clear when I said it you get down to the bare basics. Then you don't have 500 rounds...you have 22 rounds. But it was just a hypothetical. On the other hand, please explain any situation where a CCW holder with 22 rounds on his person would somehow find himself in a 500 round gunfight for his life?
The jist of my post is your chosen platform should be the one that offers you the best combination of reliability combined with accuracy, speed, and comfort.
To discard a pistol that you shoot best because another choose offers marginal improvements in high volume shooting sessions is like saying. "I am driving a car with a 35 MPH max in a race even though my best car that I could win with is in my garage....but at least I know the engine won't fail on the 35 MPH car" but then again we can twist things all day long and create irrelevant comparisons to suit our arguments.
I have read several threads on here, and elsewhere about certain handgun choices are simply crutches for accuracy.
You may have a point but if you truly accept the premise, I think the invective should be directed at this genre (http://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=41&toggle=tr) rather than the 1911. One thing generally repeated in 1911 discussions: "This is a weapon for a trained shooter, not the novice." I suppose a statement like that tends to attract the posers rather than frighten them off, but I doubt they have grandiose illusions about how accurate a shooter they become by just picking one up. The ones who can't hit anything, even with a super accurate high priced edition, have to know they can't hit anything; even if they won't admit it to anyone else.
When I was younger, the biggest issue with a pistol for me was trigger pull. A 1911 helped with this a lot. This was definitely a crutch.
Now that I have learned trigger pull to a reasonable degree, the biggest issue for me is reset. A Glock helps with this a lot. I can shoot most pistols with a degree of competency, but when I speed things up my Glock is much easier for me to shoot. This is especially true on a platform like a Sig DA/SA with a really vague, loose trigger reset. When the distance opens I can't hold the same speed with my 1911 either. My G19 could be considered a crutch on this basis.
I have access to DA/SA pistols and try to fire them a fair amount, but I'm not sure it's worth my time to try and master a platform that is very different (to me) from what I own.
On the other hand, please explain any situation where a CCW holder with 22 rounds on his person would somehow find himself in a 500 round gunfight for his life?
If you have a carry gun that is only reliable to 500 rounds when will round # 501 be fired, at the range or in a fight? Unfortunately you can't time it at round 501. A pistol that can't make it through 1,000 rds without choking a few times could choke on rounds 997, 998, and 999 or it could choke on rounds 10, 201, and 669. When will those rounds be fired?
It's not about a 500 rd firefight, it's about the amount of rounds fired through the life of the gun and how it will hold up.
I'll bow out here since I'm not even sure what were talking about now. I used a hypothetical situation where you have your carry load of ammo and that's all the gun is going to be fired since that's all you have and its being taken as literal and now were talking about hypothetical gunfights with high round counts. And its all off topic to the original post anyway.
Good day.
I'll bow out here since I'm not even sure what were talking about now. I used a hypothetical situation where you have your carry load of ammo and that's all the gun is going to be fired since that's all you have and its being taken as literal and now were talking about hypothetical gunfights with high round counts. And its all off topic to the original post anyway.
Good day.
Its about statistics.
1 failure in 500 rounds is .002 failure rate
1 failure in 20 rounds is .05
Its simple math that doesnt really have *too* much of a direct correlation to your or mine, or anyones argument but statistics DO mean something.
For me, a pistol with a lower statistical failure rate will be carried over one with a higher rate of failure any day of the week.
I don't see why you would have any buyers remorse on a Beretta 92.
They're damn good guns and haven proven themselves all over the world for the last 30-somethin' years.
If you like it more than a Glock and can comfortably carry it, then I'd say you've found your gun.
Enjoy it.
I'll bow out here since I'm not even sure what were talking about now. I used a hypothetical situation where you have your carry load of ammo and that's all the gun is going to be fired since that's all you have and its being taken as literal and now were talking about hypothetical gunfights with high round counts. And its all off topic to the original post anyway.
Good day.
No need to bow out. I think there is a break in communication here. I took you as saying that a weapon only needs to be reliable for the amount of rounds you will carry. What is being said is that the weapon will have fired many more rounds than your carry load before it is needed to defend life. The pistol may only need to be reliable for 15 rounds, butif it has been fired 500 - 1,000 times before that. When will the reliability stop?
My example was clear when I said it you get down to the bare basics. Then you don't have 500 rounds...you have 22 rounds. But it was just a hypothetical. On the other hand, please explain any situation where a CCW holder with 22 rounds on his person would somehow find himself in a 500 round gunfight for his life?
I cannot concieve of any situation where ANYONE would be in a 500 rnd pistol fight and don't believe I or anyone else implied otherwise. Having a pistol that can run 500, 1000, or 5000 rounds between malfunctions doesn't mean one expects to be in a situation where they would be required to fire that many rounds to defend themselves or others.
The jist of my post is your chosen platform should be the one that offers you the best combination of reliability combined with accuracy, speed, and comfort.
I think we are in agreement on this.
To discard a pistol that you shoot best because another choose offers marginal improvements in high volume shooting sessions is like saying. "I am driving a car with a 35 MPH max in a race even though my best car that I could win with is in my garage....but at least I know the engine won't fail on the 35 MPH car" but then again we can twist things all day long and create irrelevant comparisons to suit our arguments.
I never said that and we obviously just have different perspectives here. I'm saying if we both have race cars that are equally as fast but yours blows and engine or drops a transmission every 22 laps, but mine will go 500, 1000, or more laps who do you think will win the prize MOST often? Shoot even if yours is faster I'd win anything longer than 22 laps.
Can a gun that will only fire 22 or 50 or 100 rounds between failure win a fight and kill you dead. Sure enough. I'm not going to willingly stand in front of any pistol and let you shoot at me, even if it malfunctions EVERY round. If a pistol that will positively go 22 rnds between failure is acceptable to you. Fine with me. I personally though would send it back to the manufacturer for repair. An occasional malfunction is inevitable and anything mechanical will eventually fail. This is why we carry side arms in conjunction with long arms, extra reloads, etc.
However, I just don't understand the good enough mindset. I have also not seen anyone endorse using a pistol that is harder for the user to operate or shoot well for the sake of reliability. The ability to positively and effectively operate the weapon and make rapid accurate hits is vitally important. The ability for the pistol to reliably operate for a minimum of several hundred or thousand rounds without a malfunction that is not attributable to ammo or magazines is equally important though.
My current preference is for a high capacity 9mm, polymer framed, striker fired pistol without a manual safety. I carry and shoot a Glock 17. It has yet to malfunction in several thousand rounds. If it did and was not due to ammo or mags, I would send it for repair as there would be something wrong. If Glock couldn't fix it I'd replace it. If I continued to have issues then I'd move to a different make of pistol like an M&P. If I continued to have issues, I would begin to suspect it was me and not the pistol. I'd then seek professional training for the potential issue. If that could not resolve it I would explore different types of handguns SA, DA/SA, revolver, etc and train to effectively operate whatever I tried next, honing my skills on the weapon not the weapon to my skills. The later would in my mind be a crutch.
We may agree to disagree here, but it is nothing personal and I hope whatever you carry works well for you, and that you never have to use it for its intended purpose.
Just to be clear, if you have a 1911 or any other gun that can't go 500 rounds without breaking, ou need a new gun. My Ed Brown, Wison, and Yost 1* all ran without issue, and without cleaning, for well beyond that.
I just don't want their to be any implied stupidity here that the 1911 can't go 500 rounds without breaking.
Just to be clear, if you have a 1911 or any other gun that can't go 500 rounds without breaking, ou need a new gun. My Ed Brown, Wison, and Yost 1* all ran without issue, and without cleaning, for well beyond that.
I just don't want their to be any implied stupidity here that the 1911 can't go 500 rounds without breaking.
Some of them CANT...
I think thats the point thats being made. A 1911 is NOT a 1911 anymore. Whereas a Glock is a Glock, is a Glock all day every day, Monday through Sunday.
Ive seen taurus's break extractors right out of the box in under 15 rounds. Ive never seen a properly built 1911 do that.
Whereas a Glock is a Glock, is a Glock all day every day, Monday through Sunday.
My only caveat there is the growing aftermarket, and many of them are Glocks in platform only now. The Glock is going down the same road as the 1911 because people feel the need to change the barrel, slide, sometimes the receiver and usually evertything in between with "better" parts.
There was a guy on another board that was so proud of his "Glock" which was built without using a single Glock manufactured part.
Very true but out of the box a Glock is indeed a Glock.
Know what i mean kimosabe?
Some of them CANT...
I think thats the point thats being made. A 1911 is NOT a 1911 anymore. Whereas a Glock is a Glock, is a Glock all day every day, Monday through Sunday.
Ive seen taurus's break extractors right out of the box in under 15 rounds. Ive never seen a properly built 1911 do that.
I've never liked the "Glock vs. 1911" argument for exactly this reason. A specific brand of gun vs. a generic style? That's not apples:apples. Once you make it "polymer-frame handgun vs. 1911" the argument makes more sense and the failure rate of the non-1911 side goes way way up.
You're misunderstanding what im saying.
A 1911 is a DESIGN correct?
A Glock is a DESIGN correct? Forget the brand or model.
A Glock out of the box is designed to be a Glock with very little variation between production samples.
ALL 1911's these days are seemingly built around a rough image of the original 1911 but they're not ALL the same or built to the same quality standard.
Im not comparing reliability between gun types as directly as you think.
Yes, I don't understand what you're saying.
a 1911 is, at best, a category of gun these days. A Glock is a specifica gun made by a specific manufacturer. Comparing A Glock to a 1911 is like comparing a Ford to airplanes.
Very true but out of the box a Glock is indeed a Glock.
Know what i mean kimosabe?
I knew what you were saying, and agree. It wasn't really a caveat as much as a thought on how things are going.
The point I was making was that I carried a Springfield Armory Loaded 1911 that outta the box ran well but had the occasional FTE that locked up the gun. Would it run 22 or even 50 rounds between malfunctions? Sure. Was this acceptable? HELL NO! It went back to SA on their dime and they fixed it. It never had a malfunction again that wasn't shooter induced, including during a 3 day Pat Rogers class in fine sand. If SA couldn't have gotten it to run right I'd have had them replace it or at the worst I'd have sold it for a loss and bougt a different brand 1911 that could run.
I moved to a Glock for personal reasons and not due to any failure of the design or my particular specimen.
For what its worth I consider a 1911 to be a design as is an AR-15 as most major firearms makers offer at least one of the two. I consider the Glock to be an example of a polymer framed striker fired pistol not a design in itself. Only Glock offers pistols in their exact look and internal design. But the XD, M&P, Khar, etc are of the same style and similar design. Within reason I can take parts from one manufacturers 1911 or AR and stop them in one from another maker. Not true with the Glock. (At least with other complete factory pistols. I am aware of the plethora of drop in aftermarket parts.)
Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".
Most guns shoot better than we can hold them, but some are harder to shoot well than others. Anything that makes our job easier, like trigger jobs, custom grips, high-visibility sights, etc., is a crutch in theory.
I draw the line at anything that makes a weapon less reliable, less durable, less lethal, or harder to use under stress. Everything else is welcome.
Okie John
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.