Shooting the DA Revolver.

I understand your argument, but I don't understand your vehemence.

Miculek was brought up by others, with regard to tuned vs untuned, or standard weight vs reduced weight. In response, we pointed out that Miculek is not averse to tuned triggers; and that Miculek is sort of an outlier in any case. That was not our primary argument, but a tangent started by others.

My primary point is that it is easier to learn with a well-tuned weapon.

This is similar to my argument that it is easier to teach somebody to drive with an automatic transmission. Not having to mess with a clutch, at first, allows more attention to be paid to things like traffic, signs, lights, pedestrians... Once those are mastered, a clutch is easy to learn.

Some old-schoolers think, "Learn the stick shift first! Then you can drive anything." My take on that is that it distracts a new driver from paying attention to things outside the car.

Obviously, some disagree, but they don't usually disagree as vehemently as some of the people in this thread are doing.

For those who think mastering the DA revolver should involve box-stock, do they also think initial training should be done with an untuned .357 airlight? We could then have the new shooter learn to overcome heavy trigger weight, short sight radius, extreme recoil, and blast all in one weapon. After all, if learning the hard way is better, then that should be best, no?

Me, personally, I normally teach new shooters with my well broken-in, 1966 vintage, 4" Model 18, on the premise that a good grip, good trigger, good sights, and minimal recoil help with learning.

Guess I must be crazy...
 
TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER: g. willikers, thanks for the three days of fun.

OK, now all back to the discussion. And let's hope Jerry Miculek doesn't jump into this thread and say we're all full of doo-doo.
 
MLeake said:
My primary point is that it is easier to learn with a well-tuned weapon.
Click to expand...

That's been my point, too. I'll also agree some JM-based thread drift's got us going in circles. ;)

And I've agreed with the OP's basic premise - that a tuned trigger is no shortcut to DA proficiency. I'm vehement about that, too. But I'm also vehement about DA proficiency, and don't think a tuned action is necessarily a crutch, which is what the OP seemed to be suggesting.
 
I agree that it is easier for a shooter to build skill with a tuned revolver but can't go along with the transmission analogy. I liken learning to drive on a manual to learning to shoot with iron sights. It 'should' be a necessary skill. For anyone skilled with a manual transmission or iron sights can drive an automatic or shoot with optics, the reverse is not true. Manual transmissions and iron sight shooting are skills all their own. Whereas any shooter skilled with a tuned revolver can certainly pick up a box stock gun and shoot well with it. With skill making the difference, not the equipment.

You can still buy a lot of different vehicles with manual transmissions and one day, it might be a skill you REALLY need. Like riding a bicycle, you can go 20yrs without driving one and still be able to if the need arises. If you never learned, you're screwed. Same with iron sight shooting. Knowledge and skill are like money and time, more is always better and there's no such thing as too much.
 
Here is a view of someone fairly new to revolver shooting and who has previous experience shooting other kind of weaponry. Indeed it's like riding a bicycle: you don't forget. After about 15 years of brake and switching to revolver from something completely different it took me literally 15 or 20 shots to figure out how to hit the target and be "mostly in black" from 50FT. So, previous experience, even from long time ago and with different equipment definitely helps.

It is easier and somewhat better to use good tools such as tuned action or at least a good quality revolver. The first revolver I owned was a Russian Nagant. Let me tell you... as much respect as I have for this gun, if I did not shoot anything else, I would probably quit. When one is dealing with a revolver that has a horrible action (in the double action mode), has empty cases getting stock in the chamber after about 30 rounds and has less-then-stellar accuracy, one gets annoyed pretty quickly! The only reason I never paid my attention to all these obstacles is because I knew this is more of a heritage gun and it's not about accuracy or or ease of use. For serious stuff I was renting modern S&W and Ruger.

But imagine how many of you would continue if your first revolver was a Nagant? The forum would probably be empty! Therefore IMO it is easier to use good tools and also better to use them because you can see results faster and it keeps you interested :D
 
Last edited:
MLeake:
My primary point is that it is easier to learn with a well-tuned weapon.

SARGE:
Easier? Perhaps. Better? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

If "well-tuned weapon" means one that is "in tune", then I surely think it's better as well as easier. If "well-tuned" means "tweaked to someone (else's) race preferences" I'd say no, it's not better. But tune a gun, tune a guitar, tune a fish, they all work better.

We probably also would have to account for the extreme newbee. If someone has never in their life held a pistol, then just getting them to stand and hold the 1 or 2 lbs at arms length is probably a good start. Obviously a Rossi out of the box or a Smith Performance Center pistol would serve equally in that respect.

Guns, in nearly all cases WE discuss them, are primarily "toys". We shoot them for fun and recreation. We might also carry them for self defense, but I'd guess that nearly everyone here that carrys also plinks and target shoots. I think having a well tuned toy to play with is what most of us would <pun> shoot for</pun>. If we bought a boat or a bowling ball or a dune buggy, we'd want a well tuned boat/ball/buggy rather than settling for "just any old...".


Sgt Lumpy
 
newfrontier45, I never said a driver should not learn to drive a stick; I said a driver would have an easier time learning on an automatic, as far as being able to pay more attention to the world outside the car. After that, learning a clutch is relatively easy.

This is from somebody who put in lots of stick shift time in places like Seattle and Boston, where one often has to start from a stop sign or light on a fairly steep upgrade.

Your open sight analogy is interesting, in a way - I'd put it the reverse of your analogy. Most cars today are automatics; one has to put some effort into finding a stick; so, in my opinion, automatic transmissions are more akin to iron sights.

Similarly, I can get more performance out of a stick (in a good car) than I can from an automatic... But anyway.

Sgt Lumpy, I am not arguing for 1-2lb single action, or 7lb double action. Frankly, most of my DA guns fall in the 9-10lb range, and my SAs are all around 3-5lbs.

However, I have lightened a J-frame trigger. It measured at 14lbs on a pull gauge, which was a bit of a pain, especially in such a light gun. It's currently about 9.5lbs (Apex kit and some polishing), and is a much easier gun to shoot well. I have had zero issues with light primer strikes or failures of the trigger to return.

Would you really argue that a 14lb pull on a 15oz gun would be optimal for learning to shoot?

Would you really argue that a smooth, 10lb DA trigger is a crutch?

The gun in my safe that I like least, as far as shooting goes, is a Colt 1917. Its DA trigger is absolutely atrocious; haven't measured it, but it's a beast. The SA is ok; the sights redefine "rudimentary." I only keep it because it has history (issued to one of Merrill's Marauders in Burma); it is my ONLY safe queen.

Arguably, if you could shoot that revolver well, then you could shoot any of my other revolvers. I'd argue that most shooters would get frustrated with this particular 1917, and either switch to something easier, or quit.

Note, too, that I shoot my revolvers almost exclusively in DA mode, and I shoot them well.

That said, after building my basics on very smooth guns, I probably made the most rapid, graduate level improvement later on by dry firing the snot out of a J frame.
 
Would you really argue that a 14lb pull on a 15oz gun would be optimal for learning to shoot?

Would you really argue that a smooth, 10lb DA trigger is a crutch?
Click to expand...

If you're asking me, absolutely not. No argument. I'm in the camp that well tuned is better to learn on.


Sgt Lumpy
 
No doubt a well tuned revolver is better for a beginner to learn with.
But could the same person, who only has experience with such a gun, do well with an ordinary, run of the mill gun?
That was the intent of the thread.

What made me think of this was the pickup gun stages a local club occasionally includes in their matches.
At some point during the course of fire, the shooter holsters their own gun, and engages targets with the supplied range gun.
Calling it run of the mill gun would be generous.
It may be a revolver or an auto,
But it's for sure purposefully common, and a long way from what most participants are used to.

The results are usually quite an eye opener, and even somewhat hysterically funny, at times.
Missed targets all over the place, even from some of the top shooters.
So, you could definitely say that the tuned and improved guns they normally used had, indeed, become crutches of a sort.
So much so, that quite a few folks parked their more fancy guns and started showing up at the matches with more pedestrian guns, again.
 
But could the same person, who only has experience with such a gun, do well with an ordinary, run of the mill gun?
Click to expand...
Well, definitely. Just as well, probably not.


So, you could definitely say that the tuned and improved guns they normally used had, indeed, become crutches of a sort.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You really should've included this in the OP. Because there is HUGE difference between picking up a strange gun you're completely unfamiliar with and picking up one that is bone stock that you ARE familiar with. The biggest difference does not lie in the tuned vs untuned action but the familiarity or lack thereof.

Now the conversation takes on a completely different twist.
 
g.willikers, if you want to play the pickup from floor game, how will any revolver purist do when the picked up gun is a 1911, or P7? Or how will the DA purist do with my Vaquero?

I mean, seriously, if you want to train for the "whatever" gun, then instead of worrying about tuned triggers you would be better off thinking about training in multiple manuals of arms.

Even then, people will usually do better with some than with others.

My collection has or has had:

SA revolvers (SBH, Vaquero)
DA revolvers (K frame, N frame, GP100, SP101, 1917)
DAO revolvers (442, LCR)
SA autos (1911, BHP)
Safe Action Autos (Glock)
Whatever you call the PPQ and M&P
DA autos with safeties
DA autos with decockers (frame fore and aft, EG SIG and CZ, or slide EG Beretta)
Multi modes (CZ75, FNX)
Squeeze cocker (P7)
DAO (P239 SAS)
DAO striker (Kahr)

Most of the slides on autos I have shot could be released via slide stop; the P7s not so much; some don't lock back and must always be slungshot.

Also, my autos have had lever, conventional American, and heel mounted mag releases; my revolvers have allowed access to chambers via pushing a release forward, pushing a release inward, pulling a release backward, or pushing out a gate and possibly pulling back on a tab under the barrel...

(Edit: Also, one of my revolvers requires moon clips; some can use moon clips or work with individual cartridges; I may use speed loaders or speed strips...)

So I don't worry too much about the trigger, in the sense of adapting to a contingency gun.
 
Last edited:
how will any revolver purist do when the picked up gun is a 1911, or P7? Or how will the DA purist do with my Vaquero?
Click to expand...

This is true to a point. For example, I took my friend's Baby Eagle and I could hardly hit the target from 50FT. I have much better results with my Nagant, even though his Eagle is light-years ahead of it in technology. I just don't know how to shoot semi-auto. I don't have any practice... I am sure if I was given a few hundred rounds to play with, I would become fairly good, but just shooting random few rounds doesn't work...
 
newfrontier45 said:
there is HUGE difference between picking up a strange gun you're completely unfamiliar with and picking up one that is bone stock that you ARE familiar with.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And the difference gets even bigger under those match conditions just mentioned, where, in addition to having ZERO familiarity with the gun, you need to shoot an unfamiliar course of fire while the timer running and your competition is watching.

MLeake said:
how will any revolver purist do when the picked up gun is a 1911
Click to expand...

The pickup gun at the IDPA Worlds was, in fact, a stock 1911 with factory ball ammo (way over the 165k PF floor). And you had to shoot multiple targets strong hand only while leaning over a dummy on your knees. Revolver shooters weren't thrilled, but generally got through it just fine.
 
Last edited:
My point is, g.willikers is concerned about only one aspect of shooting - trigger control.

Sight picture and alignment, breath control, front sight focus... these fundamentals are NOT impacted by the trigger.

(Edit: they will take more effort to maintain with a heavier or rougher trigger, but that is always true - although a very light trigger can also pose challenges.)

So, I would expect to see less trouble from a change in trigger pull than from a change of operating type - not so much with regard to hitting the target, but with regard to running the gun.
 
AID_Admin, the converse is I would probably make our club's 1911 and M&P9 guys unhappy if I handed them my bobbed hammer M13. The trigger probably would not be too big a deal, but the reload times...
 
For an example, I am primarily a single action revolver shooter and that probably is at least 75% of my shooting. Rifles are after that. Next comes the time I spend with a 1911. A distant fourth is my double action revolver shooting. The guns I shoot the least are striker-fired autos, although I used to spend a lot of time with Glocks, they are a distant memory. I'm pretty good with SA's and 1911's, probably only average with a S&W. Very little is safe if I have one of my SA's inside 100yds and you wouldn't want to let me shoot at you at 300yds. By contrast, if I shoot my old man's S&W Sigma, it is embarrassing. You would think I just started shooting yesterday. Once I get 20rds downrange I can start controlling the trigger a bit better but I sure as hell wouldn't want to shoot a match with one. Does that mean that I've wasted my money having my SA's tuned? Uh, no. Does that mean that I need to spend as much time shooting striker-fired autos as much as I do revolvers? Negatory. Does that mean I need to shoot what I enjoy and live with the fact that I'm only a mediocre shooter with guns I don't like? Bingo.
 
This conversation is about revolvers, remember.
I only mentioned the use of an auto, as a pickup during a match stage, as an anecdote.
We're still in the revolver section of the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top