CCW gun recoil objections.

AK103K,

My practice sessions seem to be the same as yours; first the big stuff and then the little hand cannons.

I seldom shoot more than one magazine or one cylinder from each gun. If I can’t hit the target where it needs hitting with that then it’s time to check what I’m doing wrong or check the gun.

Yes, there have been times when I had to do that checking.

Now if the g-kids come up to the farm we have a day of plinking and it sounds like a war around here. I try not to shoot a lot then because they all can out shoot me.
 
Ive only complained about the recoil of a gun that was shooting .40's,it wasn't painful but more annoying trying to get the front sight back down on target.
Ok ill take that back ill add my sub compact PT745 .45 as its recoil is also hard to get back on target,but its fun to shoot but i enjoy my 1911 much more.

While i find it annoying,it can slow down getting that second shot off.But thats life in ccw land as you have trade off's,this one is size over recoil.
Id rather deal with the recoil of a sub compact .45 than be shooting a 9mm wich i try not too as a main ccw weapon.
Its a personal choice,not a realistic problem.
 
I think it is a bad idea to shoot more rounds through your carry gun in one session than you actually carry. Not only will your proficiency with that particular handgun drop off, rather than increase, I believe, but you will tend to forget that you won't be carrying around a lot of ammo to begin with. And I think this would be true no matter what you're carrying.

That's easy to say, of course. I might be a good idea to have a very similiar handgun (also easy to say) in a lighter caliber, usually .22 is recommended, to do a lot of shooting with and then to finish off the session with half a box or less with the main gun. Alternatively, with a revolver, you could use light target loads. But I'm sure that the average person here can maintain adequate proficiency, perhaps even excellent proficiency, with 25 rounds a week. But keep in mind that it isn't target shooting we're talking about.

I have no doubt, however, that recoil doesn't bother some people. But it is a funny thing. One of the hardest kicking pistols this side of a .41 magnum that I ever used was a Makarov. Yet one of the softest shooting pistol north of rimfire was a .380 Colt Government Model. Aside from cuts caused by the slide on a PPK and also the same from an oversized safety on a .45 Colt Government Model, I've never got a bloody hand (or face) from shooting anything from a .44 magnum on down. Some have been handfuls to shoot, to be sure, like the Colt lightweight Officer's ACP that I owned a long time ago. I never thought the recoil was particularly hard on my hand but it certainly wanted to jump around a lot when you fired it. Most curious when compared with the slightly larger Colt lightweight Commander, also in .45ACP, which exhibited none of those nervous traits.

Recoil is one thing. Blast is another. A handgun can have a terrific muzzle blast, yet not have an especially bad kick. The .357 with lighter bullets is probably the worst in that respect but I understand the .30 Tokarev is supposed to have a lot of blast and I imagine the .22 magnum in a pistol would also have a lot of muzzle blast. Keep that all in mind when you're indoors.
 
I think it is a bad idea to shoot more rounds through your carry gun in one session than you actually carry. Not only will your proficiency with that particular handgun drop off, rather than increase, I believe, but you will tend to forget that you won't be carrying around a lot of ammo to begin with. And I think this would be true no matter what you're carrying.

Really not following your logic here at all. So, if you carry a 5-shot revolver, no reloads, a "training" session should consist of 5 rounds ONLY!?! I would call that a function test, not a training session. I do not see any connection whatsoever between the number of rounds I carry daily as part of my ccw setup, and how many rounds I shoot from the same gun at the range during a practice/training session.

I also do NOT think that training with say, a .22, is going to help you one wit with actually using your 13oz J-frame with hot .38spl+p loads or full bore .357 loads, when the SHTF ands your body is dealing with about a gallon of adrenaline. You want that J-frame to feel like a very old friend whom you know better then you know anything else in your life.
 
I read many comments about why one should NOT get a small (insert name) for self-defense because it’s too light, the cartridge is too powerful, and the recoil will be awful.

“A day at the range with one of those will leave your hands bleeding and raw!”

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the purpose of a gun to conceal-carry for self-defense these?

Small enough to conceal.
Powerful enough to stop.
Reliable enough to depend upon.
Simple to operate under stress.
Accurate enough for close range.
Not meant for target shooting.
Hoped never to need.

Why should recoil be a concern for a gun you should shoot only enough to see that it meets these requirements and that you are proficient in using it?
Well, IMO, if recoil is real bad, one will not get proficient with it.

Accurate enough for close range at the range probably means one will miss when all excited under stress.

Small enough to conceal. Yes, but, one can conceal an N frame.
 
If your carrying a specific gun (the best thing to do too as far as I'm concerned), then you'd better be practicing with it on a regular basis. Doesnt matter what it is. You should be shooting it a lot.

If you feel the need to carry a small cannon, then you need to practice all the more with it, and with ammo equivalent to what you intend to carry in it, as they are more difficult to shoot well with. Practicing with loaded down ammo isnt really doing you any good. Taking a half dozen shots at a bullseye target and calling it good isnt either.

I understand that there is good practice and bad practice, and I'm not saying you should put hundreds of rounds through the gun until your twitching from the abuse (bad practice), but you do have to put in a reasonable amount of time in shooting them. Dry fire also goes a long way at helping, but it doesnt deal with some important issues.

Personally, I just dont see the point in the little hand cannons. There are better options available and you dont have to suffer practicing with them. The more you practice, the better you are.
 
First, let us agree about the things we disagree on. There are clearly different ideas of how much we need to shoot (how many rounds and how often) to remain proficient and there are probably different ideas of what adequate efficiency is. If you feel the need to shoot 50 or 100 rounds a week, then by all means do so but some people can't afford to do that.

My logic on limiting the number of practice rounds with your main carry gun, particularly if it is a small or lightweight gun, is that if you shoot a lot with it, you are apt to conclude that it is no good for long shooting sessions (which it probably isn't) and go to a different gun altogether. Some have stated that. But how far do you go in the other direction? Presumably you picked out this small or lightweight handgun for good reasons to begin with, then changed your mind about what was important. Naturally there are many factors involved and I have to admit that I pretty much did the same thing, though it was for more than one reason and the guns themselves have varied over the last almost 40 years.

The ideal way to practice realistically is rarely possible for most people, including myself, so you have to do the best you can under your own circumstances. I still think shooting with lighter calibers is a Good Thing, if it is at all possible.

I wonder how many rounds Keith put through his .44 magnum every week?
 
BlueTrain said:
First, let us agree about the things we disagree on. There are clearly different ideas of how much we need to shoot.

Yes, this is very important. But we also have to learn how to set our egos aside.

I am an excellent dishwasher and omelet maker. I am a good sharpener. I am a fair pistol shot. I am lousy with a rifle. The only reason I even went varmint shooting is that I was trained by no less than a police sniper.

(Yikes, I could shoot hoops under the tutelage of Michael Jordan and still hurl bricks.)

You and I could buy the same pistol and I'll have to fire three time the amount of practice ammunition. The goal is to protect yourself and those in your care, not to dazzle the bystanders.
 
Good topic

OP: Yes, you are correct on all the above you mentioned.

Size, caliber, accuracy to a degree and dependability.

The objection can be viewed from an experienced shooter recommending to a somewhat "newer" shooter.

We all started off somewhere and somehow.

Objections for someone to get a small carry // large caliber gun is due to mainly that one starting out shooting would not shoot such a firearm enough to fully understand even the basic prinipals of firearm handling and shooting.

It would be similar to put a 5 year on a 10 speed for their first bike. Just way too needlessly difficult and not fun to do. Also, recoil is very subjective and is really in the hands of the shooters.

I started out shooting 45ACP so when transitioning to a 9mm it was nothing. Same can be said of other calibers but if you have someone just shooting .22LR and give them a snub nose 357Magnum airweight or someone that has never really shot before and give them an gun. Even if you think you know how to shoot - handling a small framed pistol is quite challenging, now add a "larger" caliber into this equation and it can be outright dangerous to be near them.

Bottomline: one does need to practice and actually shoot it enough to become "proficient." Proficient can have many levels of meaning for each individual shooter. What it really boils down to is can you hit what you are shooting at? Distance and time factors are up to you.

The last thing you want to do.... when faced in a situation to draw and use your conceal pistol is to shoot the wrong [innocent] person.
 
Now if the g-kids come up to the farm we have a day of plinking and it sounds like a war around here. I try not to shoot a lot then because they all can out shoot me.

If the grandkids are outshooting you, then maybe your proficiency needs work.

Doesn’t this cover followup shots?
...and that you are proficient in using it?

Just how specific must I be?

Given that you have had some issues with communicating what you mean, when you speak with vague terms, you have to expect some confusion. Proficiency is a great example. A person may be proficient with a gun during slow fire, but not proficient with it shooting fast or doing combat style shooting.

Let's look at your requirements for a concealed carry gun...

Small enough to conceal.
This is quite variable based on the size of the person, clothing requirements, etc. Is smallness the only physical consideration? What aspects of smallness are being considered? Isn't weight an issue as well?

Powerful enough to stop.
To stop what? A .22 is powerful enough to stop something, even a person, but isn't necessarily a good self defense choice. Do you mean with one round or with all the rounds carried on board?

Reliable enough to depend upon.
Most guns are reliable enough to be carried concealed. They may not shoot well, but they carry great.

Simple to operate under stress.
Depending on who you speak with, a 1911 my be too complicated or any gun with a safety too complicated, yet they are common carry guns.

Accurate enough for close range.
I know of no current production firearm that isn't accurate enough for close range. Of course, what do you consider close range? What is meant by accurate enough?

Not meant for target shooting.
Whether or not a gun is "meant for target shooting" is not a requirement for a concealed carry gun.

Hoped never to need.
Since when is "hope" the requirement for anything mechanical?
 
no free lunch

A friend of mine got one of those itty bitty .45s with a plastic grip. It had bumps/pebbles on the backstrap, I'm sure meant to "improve" one's grip. However, after a full magazine (6rnds) it was uncomfortable, and afer a second magazine, the hand was sore. Both he and I had the same reaction.

Now, the maker of the gun said it should be fired 200 times, before being considered reliable.

My friend was recovering from nerve damage to his wrists, and was not even up to shooting the gun enough, so I did it for him. It was not an enjoyable time.

Now, I no there is no free lunch, and carry guns are just that, made to be carried more than fired. But one still needs to prove the gun reliable (semiautos especially), so some firing is needed. It may not be fun, but you have to do it. For two reasons, first to make sure it works, and second, to be sure you can hit where you need to, with it.
 
... and carry guns are just that, made to be carried more than fired.

See, that only makes sense to me if you are very restrictive in what you call a carry gun - ie. it only equals a small very light weight pistol or mouse gun. I know lots of folks that carry mid to full size, all steel handguns every day, some have for years - 1911s, SIGs(P229, P239, even P220), CZ P-01 or PCRs, all-steel short barreled S&W k-frames, and so on. All of those are firearms that will stand up to many 10's of thousands of rounds, yet I know folks who carry them concealed all the time, and many of them also shoot them a lot, some pretty much every week.

I simply do not buy the "carry a lot, shoot little" argument, and I won't buy a gun that I'd feel that way towards (which is exactly why I don't own an LCR or LCP, or a S&W alloy J-frame). That's just my view, but I believe it is one shared by others as well.

Of course, as mentioned, one has to think about what they can practically carry, and pragmatism may require major compromises. To each their own.
 
I wouldn't own a gun that I could shoot at least 50, if not 200, times without wishing that I hadn't.

My G33 is FUN to shoot. It's not only not painful, it's fun. The only trouble that it gives me is that it wears on my trigger finger after 6 or 8 mags full. Even then, it's not enough to stop shooting and the irritation is gone soon after I do stop.

Plus, you'd have to work pretty hard to not be able to conceal it. I don't really understand why anyone would want something smaller, at least 95% of the time. I know there are instances where even a baby Glock is too big, but they're rare.
 
Trying to get that little hand cannon out and into action while moving and shooting is real different than just standing there concentrating on your sights and trigger squeeze.
Maybe so, but that is about all some of us can do. Certain ranges do not allow moving, drawing, practically any of the things you need to practice, other than loading a gun and firing it at a target. I've found that I can usually "get away with" quickly drawing my EDC, (Kimber Ultra CDP II in .45 ACP) and emptying my carry mag into the 7 yard target within 5 seconds, without getting flak for moving, drawing, rapid-fire, etc. It is always the first thing I do when I go to the range and the most telling, as it's what I would have to do in a real situation til the threat is stopped. Secondary carries follow and, if there's any time left, the range guns come out.
 
I don't want this thread to go in the direction other have taken but I imagine that some folks here would think that soldiers and police could not possibly be proficient with their weapons because they don't get out and go through five or ten magazine-fulls every weak. But it isn't that difficult. Nor are most handguns that difficult to use, although I can think of a few models that have somewhat unnatural movements necessary to get them in action if they are carried the way the manual says to. All I'm referring to is, for example, the upward movement required on a Walther PPK to flick off the safety, same as on the older Smith & Wesson automatics. I can't think of any other features that make any handguns difficult to operate.

Some practice every now and then is certainly necessary but as mentioned by others, you quickly run into the limitations of public or commercial ranges. One that I know of does not even allow "rapid" fire, whatever that might be, and I'm sure not many will allow for practice drawing and shooting. So you do the best you can.

I've owned several guns that I wouldn't think of shooting 50 time or more, yet they were all excellent, popular and useful in their own way. One was a Colt Officer's ACP, the other a Model 29 S&W. Everything will end up being some kind of compromise.
 
If any one needs to practice more, its the police, and thats very often evident when you hear of their escapades.

Then again, most of the military and police I know or have known on a personal level, have been "gun people", and practiced on their own time and dime to stay up on that part of their profession. Many dont.

I suppose there really isnt much difference with the above when you get down to it here. You have those who carry their gun and dont take it all that serious, and those that do and work harder at it. Like anything else, you get out of it exactly what you put into it.

I know a lot of places wont let you practice realistically, but that doesnt mean you cant practice things at home, and you should be anyway, even if you can shoot as you wish at the range. Dryfire and airsoft will give you pretty much everything but the recoil and blast, and the guns work like the real thing and fit your normal holsters. Still, they are no substitute for the real thing, but especially if its a heavy recoiling handgun that takes more concentration to shoot well with.

You do need to get "good" practice time in with what you plan on carrying and you need to do it on a regular basis if you want to stay on top of things. Its even more important to do so if the gun you choose is difficult to start with.

I shoot with some friends from time to time (who carry all the time too) who dont practice on a regular basis, at the range or at home, and when we do get together to shoot, its pretty obvious. Whats VERY obvious is, when they do have the opportunity to draw and shoot, or draw, move and shoot, they are very hesitant to do so, and very awkward when they do, and its very often a scary thing, and not just for them. While they may shoot somewhat acceptable "groups" at a static bulls eye targets, it all goes south when they have to think about doing other things first, like getting their gun out (without shooting themselves or anyone else) and shooting the target. If you arent reasonably proficient at these things, you really probably shouldn't be carrying that gun.

As far as compromises go, thats up to you. I personally try my best not to when it comes to this. I normally carry a full size pistol (the one I shoot better with) with a double reload, and do what it takes to do so as much as I can. I've done this pretty much every day now for 30 some odd years, and really never had any problems doing so. Still, I do practice with those smaller, more difficult guns on a regular basis too, even though I rarely carry them any more, just in case.
 
I'm not sure there's a definite answer to how many rounds it takes to obtain or maintain proficiency. My personal experience is that quality of practice is far more important than the quantity of practice. When I practice I have a goal and a plan to reach that goal and I try optimize my drills to make the most of every round fired. I also don't shoot a whole lot of rounds because I want to stay focused, and I found when I shoot past a certain point it was detrimental to what I was trying to accomplish because my technique would get sloppy.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy plinking or mindlessly shooting at paper for fun. I just don't really consider that to be practice.
 
I bought a 15 oz Smith 637 for pocket carry a while back. I also have a Taurus 617 -- a steel .357 that weighs about 10 oz more than the Smith. I regularly shoot the old FBI load -- 158gr SWCHP +p -- from the Taurus with no issues. I decided to try it in the Smith and after two rounds I gave up; the recoil was so fierce I thought I'd broken my hand. I carry the Smith now with Federal 110gr Low Recoil Hydra-Shocks. With this ammo, the Smith is completely under control and I never feel I'm at a disadvantage, ammunition-wise. If you can't train with it, you shouldn't load it for SD, IMHO ...
 
Back
Top