Amazed at the ignorance

There's a certain irony to this question--because the thread itself is in many ways a variation of this problem.

I believe you should be flattered that a customer wants to input his/her opinion. It gives you an opportunity to show why you are the expert (next thread: "don't you hate it when the gun salesman claims to be an expert and gives idiot advice" LOL). We all love firearms and we all love sharing our enthusiasm--if biased opinions were not allowed than just about every firearms forum including this one would vanish instantly. ; )

I have in fact heard military and law enforcement mention "walking the string" as a technique to use but I would assume that would be more of a advanced technique suitable to combat--but I don't personally know or train for it--I have trouble enough just effectively sighting and steadying for a single good shot.

I would think the the most important aspect to the new weapon isn't the caliber chosen so much as how well the new lady shooter is introduced--just go to Youtube and see all the videos of boyfriends/hubbies who take glee at their SO's scaring the stuffing out of themselves by firing a weapon without being really prepared for it. I know a petite blond who showed up at my place with a SS colt 45 1911 as her CCW weapon of choice--I sure wasn't going to argue her choice. LOL
 
The gent described himself as "an old jarhead"
Click to expand...

That is a specific small group within the Marine Corp. Most people claiming to be jarheads are fakes or grunts not liking the term grunt.

There's a certain irony to this question
Click to expand...

Could it be more understated? Not much in this tread about pistol fit. Yet this is for a woman. I don't see a description to height or hand size of this person. The only dig on the autoloader that I might have with this would be the introduction of a mechanical safety. In times of stress fine motor skills might be a big problem. Also no indication of this persons commitment to training as she moves forward with her pistol choice. No indication from the NRA Instructor as to if he offered First Steps Training. He has a bird in the hand, to continue his advice would be a 4 hour starter class. Then follow it with Basic Pistol training. You could make argument for almost anything else you want to throw into this thread.
 
Chambering a round is easy if done right. Most instructors will tell you that they've never encountered an able-bodied person who couldn't be taught to rack a slide. The problem is that most men don't do it properly because we don't need to, and then when we teach women how to do it, we're actually teaching them wrong so they have trouble.
Click to expand...

Its not so much chambering the round as knowing the status of the weapon and clearing it. I can't tell you how many new shooters I've seen that were truly and utterly confounded by the status of a semi auto (magazine in? mag loaded? chamber empty/loaded?). They drop the mag and think its safe because no mag is in it. Or they rack the slide on a partially loaded mag THEN drop the mag, also thinking it was unloaded.

OTH, with a revolver actuate the cylinder release and swing out the cylinder. If you see empty holes, its empty and if not, its loaded. Much easier for new shooters to grasp this concept, particularly when they are nervous.
 
Has anyone else ever run into someone who had it so wrong AND were passing on their ignorance to others?
Click to expand...

I don't know that the old jarhead was ignorant or wrong so much as out of date. Zippering is an old method of self defense shooting that used to be taught in the military and to cops, firing and riding the recoil up as you fire. My father actually learned this as a police officer in the 1950s. It has fallen out of favor as new methods have come around, but some of the methods that have replaced it have fallen out of favor with time as well. What is being taught today will likely be out of favor, replaced by some new method in the future.

With that said, the method of zippering (not necessarily from the groin) is still taught today by some noteworthy instructors such as John Farnam.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/john-and-vicki-farnams-defensive-handgun-course/
Disable his body and destroy his will. In this regard, John teaches the “zipper” method. The objective is to turn off the attacker and stop the aggression as quickly as possible. This usually means inflicting lethal shots—shooting at the naval and then shooting up the attacker’s midline, like a zipper, until the attacker stops coming at you.
Click to expand...

It is a handgun and the zipper method works, but certainly isn't what is considered ideal today by most instructors. In reality, unless you hit CNS, most handgun stops are not due to physiological stops, but psychological stops. A shot to the groin may be all that is needed, or to the shoulder or leg, if you have to fire at all.

I would not have suggested to the old jarhead that a 9mm was better than a .40 for a new shooter just because of recoil, but because statistically, .40 doesn't off any better performance than a 9mm and you get the benefit of less recoil with the 9mm.

His second statement about a gun shot wound in the groin area.. groin would be the pelvis. I would consider that kind of injury to the pelvis to be devastating.
Click to expand...

This sort of injury with a handgun usually is NOT devastating. We like to think so and maybe from a psychological standpoint, it is quite disturbing, but the devastation isn't usually immediate in the short term. Pistol wounds generally do not shatter pelvises to the point of immobility, the pelvis being a redundantly supportive structure. You might hit an artery, which is great, but that sort of applies to shooting people in lots of places.

The funny thing about suggesting folks make groin shots is that they are actually a smaller target than a center of chest or nipple/nipple/chin triangle shot.

The funny thing about the notion of shooting folks in the pelvis with a pistol to break it is that unless you hit some key smaller areas (which do not have good external landmarks for aimpoints, BTW), you aren't apt to break a critical part of pelvis. The largest part of the pelvis is the iliac blade. Pistol rounds can often pass through the blade, producing a nice hole, but without breakage. Or maybe a chunk gets broken off the edge and is very painful, but the pelvic girdle remains intact overall.

This is really a secondary or tertiary aim point (by today's thinking) and a lot of what folks think will happen if hit there is more about getting lucky more so than necessarily happening.
 
Pushing the purchase of a small .357 revolver to a new shooter -- especially, but not limited to, a female new shooter -- borders on criminally stupid.

Yes, sometimes it works out. More often, it does not.

A snub revolver is an expert's gun: "easy" to fire only for those with good hand strength and exceptional finger strength, difficult to shoot well and exceptionally difficult to master.

But since most people purchase and use defense guns only as talismans (not as functional tools intended to do a specific task in the hands of a person trained to use it), it often works out -- because revolvers stored in nightstand drawers, unused, make people feel safer.

pax
 
PAX said:
Pushing the purchase of a small .357 revolver to a new shooter -- especially,
but not limited to, a female new shooter -- borders on criminally stupid.
Click to expand...

Sorry for not reading the qualifying word: "small" 357 before reacting.
There we agree completely.
(BTW: Who advocated a small 357?)

However I have had no problem w/ teaching 4 generations of "girls" aged
75 to the latest 11-year old granddaugter w/ a standard 4" Model-19 -- starting out with pipqueak wadcutter and eventually standardizing on +P
depending on age at the time.

That fact that such low-medium powerammunition is commercially avail-
able just about everywhere makes it an ideal tailor-to-taste-or-need
weapon
 
Last edited:
^^^Medical Fact.^^^^ I've treated a number of pelvic shots in the field and handguns simply do not shatter the pelvis, rather making a hole if it even does that. Now a rifle caliber or shotgun slugs will usually do it, though.

Research Dr. Gary K. Roberts
 
"Guns" is one of those subject where everyone of su who has one believes we are an "expert".


Everytime somebody makes a post titled "Question for the experts", I chuckle and think, "be prepared for every answer a man can come up with!"
 
I've not had a lot of training in defensive shooting. But in the majority of cases I've always been told to aim for the "center of mass", somewhere around the solar plexus, since this allows for the greatest leeway for bullet placement and still hitting the attacker.
 
Actually, it's aim at the center of what you can see at times. Folks will see a leg sticking out from an opponent but won't shoot it as they are waiting for the chest shot.
 
Has anyone else ever run into someone who had it so wrong AND were passing on their ignorance to others?
Click to expand...

ignorance: Not knowing.

Then I try to determine if the person telling the story is making himself look good at others expense. I have been told of 'A good shooting', I always ask if the person describing the event was there. The answer is always "No", and then I always ask if they would like to talk to someone that was there. The picture are not the same.

I am never so desperate for attention I require an audience, there are those that leave the house without learning how to act in public.

F. Guffey
 
Actually, it's aim at the center of what you can see at times. Folks will see a leg sticking out from an opponent but won't shoot it as they are waiting for the chest shot.
__________________

EEK! One more not so obvious scenario to ponder!

I would hope I would not have that kind of tunnel vision! All my thought and practice however does NOT include targeting arms or legs. Scary.
 
Square range and match practice discourages such. More advanced FOF covers that. I've being in classes and exercises where we:

1. Practiced how to shoot under cars at the opponent.
2. Had the BGs or simulated BGs, expose a leg and if you didn't shoot it - you were chastized.
3. Been knocked down in the melee and faced with the opponent's big fat inner thigh, put a series of simulated rounds into it.

So, if you see the opponent's rear end sticking out, shoot it. Done that. Same idea with folks not taking a shot through concealment as they are waiting for the perfect shot.
 
...they are waiting for the perfect shot.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps a larger target that they're more confident they can hit...or, they're limited on ammunition and don't want to waste it on unknown shots.

The problem with pistol training scenarios is most of them allow you to carry as much ammunition as you want. Three, four, five, six or more magazines. You can afford to take "chance" shots with a relatively large amount of ammunition.

Run the same drills with 10 or less rounds in a single magazine and see if you want to take the same shots.
 
If you have a chance to shoot an opponent but wait for to take a perfect shot, you give the opponent more time to shoot you.

In quality FOF, you do not have unlimited ammo. I am not talking gun games. If you can't risk take a shot from a standard mag - you need a bit more skills practice.
 
Let me be clear in that I have never shot anyone or shot at anyone, and never had the need to do so. I hope I never will. I have had some decent LEO training, though.

That being said, IMHO, the biggest problem with "scenarios" is - scenarios. Folks seem to want to overthink every possible situation, usually based on something they heard about or saw in a movie or on TV. "What if the bad guy is suspended by a cable from the Golden Gate Bridge ...."

It seems to me that good general training with the duty/carry firearm and some common sense is more likely to be productive than an effort to try to have a plan to cover every possible SD situation. Also, the simple act of taking cover seems to be a no-no in some training; I have heard of some trainers who consider it "soft" to even suggest getting behind a tree, insisting that the trainee "stand up like a man and return fire."

Another point too often overlooked is that, unlike range experience, you and the "target" are not likely to be alone. If you open fire, you will risk the lives of others, possibly including your own family, either from the BG or from your own gun. Do you still blaze away with a half dozen magazines?

Jiim
 
Or, perhaps a larger target that they're more confident they can hit...or, they're limited on ammunition and don't want to waste it on unknown shots.
Click to expand...
All of this is predicated on the assumption that shooting is absolutely necessary. If it weren't then the discussion would be about criminal activity which is inconsistent with TFL's charter and rules.

Given that the discussion is about legal self-defense and therefore any shooting being done is absolutely necessary, one had better NOT be waiting on anything...
 
James K said:
Also, the simple act of taking cover seems to be a no-no in some training; I have heard of some trainers who consider it "soft" to even suggest getting behind a tree, insisting that the trainee "stand up like a man and return fire."
Click to expand...
Did any of those trainers give any rational for that, other than macho platitudes? Most of my firearms training is in infantry tactics, much of which involves the proper use of cover. A lot of that training isn't really very applicable to civilian self-defense, but I've always figured that my strongly-ingrained desire to seek cover would serve me well in certain situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top