I'll paraphrase Jeff Cooper here the only thing you should be thinking about, when somebody is shooting at you, is your shooting.With bullets flying towards him, the officer probably had other thoughts at that time as well.
I'll paraphrase Jeff Cooper here the only thing you should be thinking about, when somebody is shooting at you, is your shooting.With bullets flying towards him, the officer probably had other thoughts at that time as well.
Well, I would certainly hope its in the loop.I'll paraphrase Jeff Cooper here the only thing you should be thinking about, when somebody is shooting at you, is your shooting.
Given that it meets other constraints (grip fits the hand comfortably, pistol isn't too bulky or heavy for concealed carry, etc), what is the downside to higher capacity?
Please bear in mind, guns do not cause spray and pray. Given a reasonably well trained, reasonably disciplined shooter, what advantage is there to having fewer bullets?
Correct. And this is even at the level of guns that truly can.Please bear in mind, guns do not cause spray and pray.
Possibly with an untrained, or under trained shooter, but not with a "reasonably" trained shooter.Would you deny that having a hi cap gun in the holster can affect mindset?
Evidently he was, therefore he wasn't really thinking about a reload until doing his after-action assessment.the only thing you should be thinking about, when somebody is shooting at you, is your shooting.
That's be me...Or the more aggressive "shoot them to the ground" school of thought?
Only because so often equipment is used in lieu of training.you are making the common error of blaming a training problem on equipment.
I believe the report at hand goes a long way to disprove that theory. I would say that officer Lang was more than "reasonably" trained and started the gunfight in "spray and pray" mode it wasn't until he realized that it wasn't working that he returned to his mindset of "front sight trigger"Possibly with an untrained, or under trained shooter, but not with a "reasonably" trained shooter.
I would agree with that.It would be my stance that a "revolver" mentality of making every shot count with a hi cap gun would make a dangerous man.Perhaps its the mindset and not the weapon thats being mis thought here, and causing the hand wringing.
I dont think it would have mattered here if he had a revolver or a high cap, other than it could well have been different if he ran through the revolvers 6 or 7 shots at the onset.I believe the report at hand goes a long way to disprove that theory. I would say that officer Lang was more than "reasonably" and started the gunfight in "spray and pray" mode it wasn't until he realized that it wasn't working that he returned to his mindset of "front sight trigger"
Ideally, thats it right there. In reality, the high cap allows a little more leeway if things dont go as perfectly as they do on the range.I would agree with that.It would be my stance that a "revolver" mentality of making every shot count with a hi cap gun would make a dangerous man.
Point shooting is OK but more difficult with a 45. Aimed shooting is best, but when you only have 5, perhaps 10 seconds, the aimed accurate shot must be gotten off quickly.
Target shooting, and "shooting to live", dont really have a lot in common
No, youre right, I guess I didnt put it right.I disagree, you need both.
I agree, and I'd "probably" take the shot too.Am aware of two separate incidents where a woman was held hostage at knifepoint, in both cases a rescue shot was not taken, the distance about 10 to 15 feet. Both women were stabbed and died. Both perps were subsequently shot.
If someone is holding my daughter at knifepoint, I will take the shot. That's where I believe target shooting is critical to survival.