1911 for concealed carry
- Thread starter Oldjarhead
- Start date
Mike_Fontenot
New member
AK103K said:
It's just how I (vastly) prefer to shoot.
A retired cop, and professional shooting consultant, recommended it to me many years ago. I initially thought it was a crazy idea, but I gradually experimented with it (using my carry gun at the time, a S&W337 untralight (11oz) titanium .38special snubby), and found that I shot it better that way, and that the recoil was almost completely soaked up by the inertia of my arms (rather than delivered to my brain, teeth, eyes, and neck), even though all of my joints were completely relaxed and flexed. When I got the same basic gun (still 11oz) in .357mag (the S&W360sc), I thought that I certainly wouldn't be able to use a relaxed grip and relaxed, bent, joints with that HUGE power-to-weight ratio. So I started off with a rigid, very firm grip. But I gradually tried slowly relaxing the grip/joints, and found to my surprise that I could COMPLETELY relax, and the inertial of my arms STILL soaked up all the recoil, and the gun never flew out of my hands, and never smacked me in the face. And I SHOT it better. The same thing has happened with my later-acquired guns ... my 10mm Kimber 1911 and my S&W69 L-Frame .44mag (both with full-spec ammo).
As to using SA with DA/SA revolvers, I started out (about 50 years ago) with a Ruger Blackhawk .41mag single-action revolver. When I later got my first DA/SA revolvers, I HATED shooting them in DA (and still do). For me, DA mode is only for situations where I can't avoid it.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
That's hilarious.
Honestly, it can feel that way if you don't have a proper belt and holster combination.
I use this Browncoat Tactical Belt with a holster varying on the gun. But it's usually kydex.
Its not that bad.
Its really not bad at all actually. No worse than anything else, and better than others.
If youre doing what I think youre doing, its probably going to be an issue for you at some point, with the autoloaders. Allowing the arms to move rearwards with recoil, is what causes the infamous "limp wrist" malfunction.
I used to thumb cock my revolvers early on. What got me to go DA, was my 4" S&W Model 29, shooting hot loads. I had never been a flincher until I got that gun. A friend, who was a big revolver shooter, suggested I shoot it DAO, and it was one of the best pieces of gun advice Ive ever received. My flinch went away, and my groups quickly shrank by more than half, as I became used to the tecnique, and my muscle tone improved. Other than my SA revolvers, I havent thumb cocked one since.
The biggest advantage to a proper grip and DAO shooting is, it allows you to shoot the gun quickly and accurately, and youre controlling the recoil, even with heavy recoiling guns, much better.
Not saying its always pleasant though. My hands really hate me after about a box of hot .38's out of my 642's.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
AK103K said:
Re: the limp-wristing issue, that may be true for many (most?) semi-autos, and I was warned about it by the range officers when I got my 10mm 1911, but it has never been a problem with that particular gun ... even after more than a thousand rounds shot out of it. Perhaps it's because, with the 10mm, the slide moves so fast that the resistance provided by the shooter doesn't matter. My 10mm 1911 is the only semi-auto I've ever had, or will likely ever have, so if limp-wristing with it works OK, I'm good.
Re: the flinch, you may have started flinching when you started shooting SA because your firm and rigid grip/joints transferred more of the heavy recoil to your body than a relaxed/flexed grip/joints would have. I CAN see how a long trigger pull almost guarantees that you can't know EXACTLY when the hammer is going to drop, which means that you can't flinch. A trigger which doesn't move until the hammer drops doesn't guarantee that you won't jerk it, and thus know exactly when the hammer is going to fall. I TRY to keep the "surprise factor" with my non-moving SA triggers by trying to force myself to smoothly and uniformly increase the trigger PRESSURE I'm exerting, even when the "window of time" within which I'm shooting is only a half-second or so. But I HAVE found that, although I can do that perfectly when I'm dryfiring, it's much harder to get that uniformity in my trigger control when I know that the gun is going to go bang.
Re: shooting quickly (i.e., fast follow-up shots): Fast follow-up shots are not an objective of mine, for several reasons. I prefer very powerful (and low-round-count) guns, and so I need to concentrate on hitting what I'm aiming at on the first shot. If I wanted to shoot a lot of bullets as fast as possible down-range, I'd shoot a high-capacity 9mm in a heavy gun, and I'd use a very firm grip and very straight, rigid elbows.
Re: "controlling recoil": A firm/rigid grip/joints will control recoil better, if by "controlling recoil" you mean minimizing muzzle-rise, and time away from target. But if "controlling recoil" means making the felt recoil from a powerful gun as easy on your body as possible, then I've found a very relaxed grip and flexed, relaxed joints to be MUCH better.
I wouldn't want a gun to surprise me when it fired. I might not be on target just then. I'm not sure you'd call that trigger control.
But individual handguns can differ greatly. For combat shooting, though, I suspect there is little practical difference within a fairly wide range. For target shooting, however, it's a different matter, and probably for game shooting, too.
For a while, it was considered up-to-the-minute to thumb cock a double-action revolver and that was for combat shooting when revolvers ruled the world, so to speak. S&W revolvers especially grew wide triggers and wide hammers. You could even get something called a trigger shoe for your otherwise standard trigger. Some shooting competition grew up from police shooting courses and revolvers were modified to give a winning edge. Probably the most common was an extra-heavy barrel. They were basically hot-rodded K-38s. But before revolvers became old-fashioned, some large departments had switched to double-action-only revolvers. In a way, the Glock action is a double-action-only.
Colt tried to sell something like that but it didn't go over well with those who bought guns (meaning you and me). But everybody (but Glock, so far) seems to make a 1911 style pistol. So they must be good for something.
I don't think they or even thicker pistols are that uncomfortable to carry inside the waistband (haven't tried absolutely every different model yet). One thing that helps, to be blunt, is a little extra soft flesh in the right places. I'm on the skinny side and even I have enough of that stuff. But part of the reason I say that is because a typical concealment belt holster puts the pistol a little higher, enough so that it digs in my ribs and I find that more uncomfortable than an IWB holster. But that's just my own feeling about the matter. Besides, telephone books where I live are over two-inches thick.
But individual handguns can differ greatly. For combat shooting, though, I suspect there is little practical difference within a fairly wide range. For target shooting, however, it's a different matter, and probably for game shooting, too.
For a while, it was considered up-to-the-minute to thumb cock a double-action revolver and that was for combat shooting when revolvers ruled the world, so to speak. S&W revolvers especially grew wide triggers and wide hammers. You could even get something called a trigger shoe for your otherwise standard trigger. Some shooting competition grew up from police shooting courses and revolvers were modified to give a winning edge. Probably the most common was an extra-heavy barrel. They were basically hot-rodded K-38s. But before revolvers became old-fashioned, some large departments had switched to double-action-only revolvers. In a way, the Glock action is a double-action-only.
Colt tried to sell something like that but it didn't go over well with those who bought guns (meaning you and me). But everybody (but Glock, so far) seems to make a 1911 style pistol. So they must be good for something.
I don't think they or even thicker pistols are that uncomfortable to carry inside the waistband (haven't tried absolutely every different model yet). One thing that helps, to be blunt, is a little extra soft flesh in the right places. I'm on the skinny side and even I have enough of that stuff. But part of the reason I say that is because a typical concealment belt holster puts the pistol a little higher, enough so that it digs in my ribs and I find that more uncomfortable than an IWB holster. But that's just my own feeling about the matter. Besides, telephone books where I live are over two-inches thick.
Hunter Customs
New member
Yes it is very much like the phone book in my location, slim and easy to hide, our phone book measures 9 inches long, 6 inches wide and 1/8 inch thick.
Resistance and/or "mass" behind the gun, is what matters. If you allow the arms to move rearwards with the gun during recoil, thats when you get a "limp wrist" malfunction. It has nothing to do with the wrist.
No, it was knowing the gun was going to go off, as soon as I nudged that light SA trigger. My focus became the trigger, and not the sights. Worrying on the trigger is counter productive. Worrying on the sights, not so much.
The point is to have the sights aligned and focus on them, and let the trigger break. Not worry on the trigger "and" the sights. The sights (or your index, if your not using the sights) are the important part.
When shooting DAO, or anything for that matter, you focus on holding a good sight picture, until the gun goes bang, and then right back to it, as the gun comes back onto the target.
I know when the gun is going off, even if it is a "surprise". Its just not that much of a surprise. It shoots when I want it too, Im just not thinking about the trigger when it does.
Yup, aggravation.
Its all those "everybody's", making what "they" think is a proper 1911, and screwing it up royally for the most part. Glocks, SIG's HK's, etc, normally work 100% right out of the box, and with no break in. And for what things cost these days, why should you have to break it in anyway?
I was schooled in the use of any handgun "front sight focus-surprise break"
I'm sure most know this technique and I'm sure there are other opinions.
If the trigger breaks clean, as in a tuned 1911, or not so clean as in some others, it still seems to work well for me although I need to practice more often when shooting more than one handgun.
I wish I didn't like guns so much. I should only have one or two. It seems that the old adage "beware the one gun man because he probably knows how to use it" makes a lot of sense.
I'm sure most know this technique and I'm sure there are other opinions.
If the trigger breaks clean, as in a tuned 1911, or not so clean as in some others, it still seems to work well for me although I need to practice more often when shooting more than one handgun.
I wish I didn't like guns so much. I should only have one or two. It seems that the old adage "beware the one gun man because he probably knows how to use it" makes a lot of sense.
I don't see how one could relax shooting a handgun except when at the range or when plinking. Maybe I'm the nervous type.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that Colt made a full-size lightweight Government Model, probably all in .45 auto. They don't list it on their website now but they tell me at the shop that Colt makes all sorts of things that never get catalogued, which may have been a slight exaggeration. Anyway, I know where one is and it's for sale. I can't afford it, though. In fact, in spite of all my ramblings about wanting a Government Model, I still can't really afford one right now. Maybe in six months if I give up something. If they have something on hand that I really, really want, they'll sell it a few days before I show up cash in hand. It's happened before. But I have a long wish list when it comes to guns.
By the way, all of the "1911s" that I've had worked perfectly fine "right out of the box." I do not subscribe to the belief that anyone's imitation Colt, much less the real thing, is a fixer-upper. But on the other hand, I also do not believe, based entirely on my own experiences, that they invariably have good triggers. Most do, depending on what you mean by good, but one of mine, a Springfield Armory .38 Super, definitely did not. It was still a good pistol.
So, when do you think Glock will come out with a "1911?"
I mentioned earlier in the thread that Colt made a full-size lightweight Government Model, probably all in .45 auto. They don't list it on their website now but they tell me at the shop that Colt makes all sorts of things that never get catalogued, which may have been a slight exaggeration. Anyway, I know where one is and it's for sale. I can't afford it, though. In fact, in spite of all my ramblings about wanting a Government Model, I still can't really afford one right now. Maybe in six months if I give up something. If they have something on hand that I really, really want, they'll sell it a few days before I show up cash in hand. It's happened before. But I have a long wish list when it comes to guns.
By the way, all of the "1911s" that I've had worked perfectly fine "right out of the box." I do not subscribe to the belief that anyone's imitation Colt, much less the real thing, is a fixer-upper. But on the other hand, I also do not believe, based entirely on my own experiences, that they invariably have good triggers. Most do, depending on what you mean by good, but one of mine, a Springfield Armory .38 Super, definitely did not. It was still a good pistol.
So, when do you think Glock will come out with a "1911?"