lee n. field
New member
My "Service" size XD, just seems to naturally shoot well for me.
Likewise, my S&W Model 19-4. 4" barrel, sweet trigger. tightest groups of anything I have.
And, of course, not to forget, my Ruger Mark II Target.
Handguns you're naturally accurate with?
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
- Status
My "Service" size XD, just seems to naturally shoot well for me.
Likewise, my S&W Model 19-4. 4" barrel, sweet trigger. tightest groups of anything I have.
And, of course, not to forget, my Ruger Mark II Target.
If you're target shooting, accuracy could be the metric by which success is determined.
Tactical shooting is a horse of a different color. Gun magazines have skewed tactical dynamics all to hell. They've come out with cute bromides that their readers parrot like a politician reading a teleprompter. I about wanna puke when I hear neophytes parrot spray and pray, the the best gun is the one you have one you when SHTF, or arguably the worst: accuracy is most important in a gunfight.
Gun magazines are entertainment. The are devoid of scientific relevancy. If you're after science, go with professional journals. Whatever you do, don't parrot spray and pray. It'd be a lot wiser to know cover fire and suppressive fire.
The fact is in tactical shooting, "X" hits ain't the objective. Avoidance is. A bad guy's shooting at you because he wants you at room temperature, which equates to many degrees below ground. If you can't avoid, not getting shot is next most important. A bad guy with his heart shot out will live 8 very long seconds, far long enough to take you with him. Put a round in his shootin' extremity, and I'll take odds he's immediately gonna stop shootin' at you. So what's the better hit, an "X" ring, a shattered shooting arm or a round through his shootin' hand that sends his gun flyin' like a drone without radio signal?
Remember, if you can't avoid, then it's a pretty darn good idea to avoid taking rounds. If you go John Wayne and stand stationary in front of a bad guy and take precise aim, your wives will be completing life insurance forms within hours.
Here's a thought that might just keep you payin' taxes: bad guys train as much if not more than good guys. And many bad guys have military training. I'd go with avoiding a bad guy with military training. After all, he is an authentic trained killer. I ain't yet met a civilian shooter without militrary or law enforcement training who is. I've met many who thought they were, but none that were.
Tactical shooting is a horse of a different color. Gun magazines have skewed tactical dynamics all to hell. They've come out with cute bromides that their readers parrot like a politician reading a teleprompter. I about wanna puke when I hear neophytes parrot spray and pray, the the best gun is the one you have one you when SHTF, or arguably the worst: accuracy is most important in a gunfight.
Gun magazines are entertainment. The are devoid of scientific relevancy. If you're after science, go with professional journals. Whatever you do, don't parrot spray and pray. It'd be a lot wiser to know cover fire and suppressive fire.
The fact is in tactical shooting, "X" hits ain't the objective. Avoidance is. A bad guy's shooting at you because he wants you at room temperature, which equates to many degrees below ground. If you can't avoid, not getting shot is next most important. A bad guy with his heart shot out will live 8 very long seconds, far long enough to take you with him. Put a round in his shootin' extremity, and I'll take odds he's immediately gonna stop shootin' at you. So what's the better hit, an "X" ring, a shattered shooting arm or a round through his shootin' hand that sends his gun flyin' like a drone without radio signal?
Remember, if you can't avoid, then it's a pretty darn good idea to avoid taking rounds. If you go John Wayne and stand stationary in front of a bad guy and take precise aim, your wives will be completing life insurance forms within hours.
Here's a thought that might just keep you payin' taxes: bad guys train as much if not more than good guys. And many bad guys have military training. I'd go with avoiding a bad guy with military training. After all, he is an authentic trained killer. I ain't yet met a civilian shooter without militrary or law enforcement training who is. I've met many who thought they were, but none that were.
dahermit,
What does it matter? Is that an important metric to you? To me, it's a neophyte bromide.
The only way to determine successful outcome to a gunfight is whether cops survived. I don't care if cops fired an armory of ammo. All I wanna know is whether cops survived.
It's stupid to die with rounds in your gun. Now gun magazines will opine conversely. But their target audience ain't professionals. Professionals read journals.
But if you're good counting rounds, I'm good. You do what's right for you.
What does it matter? Is that an important metric to you? To me, it's a neophyte bromide.
The only way to determine successful outcome to a gunfight is whether cops survived. I don't care if cops fired an armory of ammo. All I wanna know is whether cops survived.
It's stupid to die with rounds in your gun. Now gun magazines will opine conversely. But their target audience ain't professionals. Professionals read journals.
But if you're good counting rounds, I'm good. You do what's right for you.
During the Spanish-American War, the US Army, chiefed by the lame brain, thought that only single shots oughta be issued to soldiers lest they waste ammo. The US Army was good with wasting soldiers' lives, but not bullets. The Spanish were armed with repeating rifles that killed far too many American soldiers.
Billy Mitchell was court martial outta the US Army because he told the US Navy that aircraft made battleships obsolete. Apparently obsolete traditions live way too far beyond their utility. The USS Wisconsin, the last American battleship, was obsolete before it hit water. The WWII Battle of Coral Sea was the first naval battle fought entirely by aircraft. Of course, General Billy Mitchell's court martial was posthumously rescinded, and he was reinstated with full military honor.
During the Vietnam War, 50,000 rounds were fired per confirmed vermin killed. I wouldn't care if a soldier had to fire every round we produced. The only metric that matters is whether the soldier survived.
Technology will make fighter aircraft obsolete. Drones are already keeping US pilots outta harm's way. Using satellite technology, we can destroy an enemy's entire air force before it gets a single plane airborne. Were an enemy to manage to get a plane airborne, we can shoot it down with a missile its pilot will never see until it's in its cockpit.
Like technology, survival tactics keep evolving. The only metric that matters is survival.
It we continue to evolve and think outside of confining boxes, we can keep good guys alive.
Billy Mitchell was court martial outta the US Army because he told the US Navy that aircraft made battleships obsolete. Apparently obsolete traditions live way too far beyond their utility. The USS Wisconsin, the last American battleship, was obsolete before it hit water. The WWII Battle of Coral Sea was the first naval battle fought entirely by aircraft. Of course, General Billy Mitchell's court martial was posthumously rescinded, and he was reinstated with full military honor.
During the Vietnam War, 50,000 rounds were fired per confirmed vermin killed. I wouldn't care if a soldier had to fire every round we produced. The only metric that matters is whether the soldier survived.
Technology will make fighter aircraft obsolete. Drones are already keeping US pilots outta harm's way. Using satellite technology, we can destroy an enemy's entire air force before it gets a single plane airborne. Were an enemy to manage to get a plane airborne, we can shoot it down with a missile its pilot will never see until it's in its cockpit.
Like technology, survival tactics keep evolving. The only metric that matters is survival.
It we continue to evolve and think outside of confining boxes, we can keep good guys alive.
The point is, if the officer is not hitting what he is aiming at, the perpetrator has more opportunity to hit him and logically more officers are/will be killed than if they "took their time in a hurry" and hit with the first shot. I suspect that there is a correlation between how much time in practice developing accuracy that the number of shots fired per incident, and the number of police killed. You may cite all the shots fired in Vietnam for enemy killed, but the truth is the tactics for jungle warfare with its "suppressing fire" may not be applicable to self-defense shooting...apples and oranges.
Practice, practice, practice until one can hit what is aimed at...rapidly would seem logical. Getting off fast shots and hitting the lamp post does not seem so logical to me.
dahermit,
In a gunfight, a bad guys wants you dead. If you go the route of urban legend, you're likely to become a dead legend. In a gunfight, the most important factor is not getting shot. If you take time to precisely aim at a bad, you'd be far too long a stationary target. Translation: you're odds of survival ain't good.
Number of rounds fired is immaterial. What is material is good guy survival.
A tactical shooting course might help you understand this. Tactical shooting ain't target practice. Tactical shooting is intended to teach you to live.
In a gunfight, a bad guys wants you dead. If you go the route of urban legend, you're likely to become a dead legend. In a gunfight, the most important factor is not getting shot. If you take time to precisely aim at a bad, you'd be far too long a stationary target. Translation: you're odds of survival ain't good.
Number of rounds fired is immaterial. What is material is good guy survival.
A tactical shooting course might help you understand this. Tactical shooting ain't target practice. Tactical shooting is intended to teach you to live.
This begs the question: What do you consider a "neophyte"? In regard to surviving a gunfight, I would consider all persons who have not survived several gunfights to be a "neophyte" when it comes to defensive shooting. In that regard, despite the fact that I have been shooting for many years, I am a neophyte. Your apparent arrogance in the matter suggests that you are not a "neophyte". If that be so, would you mind sharing the number and circumstances in which you engaged with a handgun against an opponent...I do not wish to argue with another neophyte, I can do that in a bar.
- Status