Handgun to beat

[gorcorps]

you really shouldn't chew your nails

Mine look a hell of a lot worse than that

 

[etrigan420]

Mine look a hell of a lot worse than that

This is ATOT, gentlemen.

I expect manicures and monocles by Monday.

 

[rudeguy]

But to get this thread back on track:

If you are going to own one gun, make sure its something you feel safe with. Also make sure its something you are willing to train with. I prefer 9mm because the ammo is cheap and I'm more accurate than with larger calibers. Now that doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to have a bigger gun to take to the range or carry on days when I'm lacking testosterone.

Just whatever you get...please take it out and shoot it. I think once a month is minimum but I'm a bit cautious. A gun that lives on a shelf and never gets to do its job is worthless. A gun likes to shoot bullets and building muscle memory is a necessary part of owning one.

 

[alkemyst]

But to get this thread back on track:

If you are going to own one gun, make sure its something you feel safe with. Also make sure its something you are willing to train with. I prefer 9mm because the ammo is cheap and I'm more accurate than with larger calibers. Now that doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to have a bigger gun to take to the range or carry on days when I'm lacking testosterone.

Just whatever you get...please take it out and shoot it. I think once a month is minimum but I'm a bit cautious. A gun that lives on a shelf and never gets to do its job is worthless. A gun likes to shoot bullets and building muscle memory is a necessary part of owning one.

I agree.

So many have all these guns and end up spending all their time maintaining them rather than learning them.

It's funny to hear at the range how they have a gun for every purpose and then end up milking their ammo.

In the end, it's what you have on you that you will need to use.

When I am at the range with a handgun I am going for quick shots. Not playing the 'sighting' game. I especially want to see how my follow up shots land. I am a bigger guy and some guns just are all over the place or simply can't be fired quickly shot to shot.

I am really good with a 1911 full size, but I am thinking more and more about having a gun on me day to day now. I have driven 5200 miles in just 1 month ending up in some of the worst areas known to man after-hours when I leave. A 1911 is really hard to conceal and in compact form not so good IMHO, those that are easy(ier) to conceal give up capacity.

.380 I am really good with even in compacts...but I worry running into a hood rat with ebay body armor on.

9mm I am also good with in compact, but the ammo could be lacking and running +P in many guns is heading for disaster.

I really like the CZ P01. I am just trying to get my wife on-board for a full-time gun in the house.

 

[Pia]

When I am at the range with a handgun I am going for quick shots. Not playing the 'sighting' game.

What do you mean by 'sighting game'? Are you using some kind of point shooting methodology with no sight picture?

For the information of people on the thread who are newer to shooting, the standard way to learn to be a good shot is to first learn to only make good hits (using some objective standard of "good") using as much time as you need, and then speed up while maintaining the high standard of accuracy. Shooting poor hits quickly and trying to improve the accuracy while maintaining the speed doesn't work; you won't become accurate and you won't even be that fast.

In this competition footage, all the shots including the follow-up shots are made with a sight picture, and are both quick and accurate. When you consider the role of accuracy and good sight picture in hit determination and chances of needing a follow-up shot, it becomes apparent that accurate shooting is much more efficient (we could say "faster") than inaccurate shooting. That's even before the real-life considerations of terminal ballistics and physiology, which further highlight the need for accuracy with handguns.

 

[a777pilot]

I'm in the process of picking out my first handgun to compliment my first shotgun.

This will be for home defense and range use.

I've picked my caliber: 9mm

I've decided that the handgun to beat is the Springfield XDm 3.8.

I picked this over the Glock 19 due to the grip safety; because it gives me a warm fuzzy.

Bud's has it for $~560.

Can you do better for the price?

If you are not a proficient shooter, and you don't sound like one, seeing how this is your first shotgun and now your first handgun, I have a suggestion for your first ever handgun purchase.

First you said this was for home defense. That's good. You have an idea then of how and when you would use it. All the suggestions that have been made are good but not for a novice. My suggestion is you take you handgun money and purchase a Taurus Judge.

The chances are you are not familiar with this weapon, so look it up and do some studying before you buy that first handgun.

 

[OverVolt]

at short ranges it is way easier for me to just aim naturally, at about 20yds+ I have to start using the sight.

all the shots including the follow-up shots are made with a sight picture, and are both quick and accurate.

I watched, and no they aren't. First shot was sighted and follow up shots were recoil control and muscle memory. They control the recoil and see the sights line up for a split second and fire it wherever they had controlled the recoil to go.

They aren't just tapping away on the trigger after the first shot but they aren't exactly lining up the front and back sights either. They are in the middle of controlling the recoil still and when they see the sights line up for 0.2 seconds they fire again but it is prone to mistakes its not like its a well aimed shot just muscle memory.

I have done the same thing and got a grouping of 5 bullets on top of each other in about 3seconds at 10yds but of course it was a zombie target and they all went under their arm so lulz I was talking about it to a friend and they were like "cool group but you missed the zombie". Although I'm sure you can hit a big circle doing that pretty easily.

 

[alkemyst]

What do you mean by 'sighting game'? Are you using some kind of point shooting methodology with no sight picture?

For the information of people on the thread who are newer to shooting, the standard way to learn to be a good shot is to first learn to only make good hits (using some objective standard of "good") using as much time as you need, and then speed up while maintaining the high standard of accuracy. Shooting poor hits quickly and trying to improve the accuracy while maintaining the speed doesn't work; you won't become accurate and you won't even be that fast.

In this competition footage, all the shots including the follow-up shots are made with a sight picture, and are both quick and accurate. When you consider the role of accuracy and good sight picture in hit determination and chances of needing a follow-up shot, it becomes apparent that accurate shooting is much more efficient (we could say "faster") than inaccurate shooting. That's even before the real-life considerations of terminal ballistics and physiology, which further highlight the need for accuracy with handguns.

I am talking about being able to spend a few seconds to set up your shots versus 'shooting from the hip' more or less.

Most can be pretty accurate giving time. I will set up a few targets at slightly different distances/angles and just fire.

For me that is how a situation I will need to shoot back will go down.

Regardless if I needed a follow-up shot or not, I am putting at least three bullets into whomever was trying to attack me and let God sort them out.

This is more of a need-based arena than a competitive one.

Knowing guys that thought they put a perp down only to get stabbed by the asshat when checking on them explains this all to me. I am putting three into them, calling 911 and leaving them there. I will meet the police at a safe location after.

I am also hoping I never have to be in that situation.

 

[alkemyst]

I have done the same thing and got a grouping of 5 bullets on top of each other in about 3seconds at 10yds but of course it was a zombie target and they all went under their arm so lulz I was talking about it to a friend and they were like "cool group but you missed the zombie". Although I'm sure you can hit a big circle doing that pretty easily.

If you are getting good groupings then all you need to do is adjust your 'sighting'.

 

[Pia]

at short ranges it is way easier for me to just aim naturally, at about 20yds+ I have to start using the sight.

I watched, and no they aren't. First shot was sighted and follow up shots were recoil control and muscle memory. They control the recoil and see the sights line up for a split second and fire it wherever they had controlled the recoil to go.

They aren't just tapping away on the trigger after the first shot but they aren't exactly lining up the front and back sights either. They are in the middle of controlling the recoil still and when they see the sights line up for 0.2 seconds they fire again but it is prone to mistakes its not like its a well aimed shot just muscle memory.

I have done the same thing and got a grouping of 5 bullets on top of each other in about 3seconds at 10yds but of course it was a zombie target and they all went under their arm so lulz I was talking about it to a friend and they were like "cool group but you missed the zombie". Although I'm sure you can hit a big circle doing that pretty easily.

You are mistaken. High level shooters know where each of their shots goes. Only at the very closest distances they will forgo the use of sights in favor of strictly using body index to make the shot, but it's still an aimed shot - they know exactly where it goes - and at those distances they will make both the initial and the follow-up shot with the same kind of focus. Basically they know what they need to make the hit reliably in different situations, and they only shoot after they have that sight picture and/or body position they need. They do not shoot at a certain rhythm and hope for a hit.

Brian Enos writes in his book "Practical Shooting" that one of his normal training exercises is to put ten shots in a 6"x11" target at 7 yards, starting holstered and with his hands up. His training time for this is 2 seconds, of which the initial draw takes around 0.7 seconds which means less than 0.15 seconds between follow-up shots. At such a short distance, an IPSC grandmaster does not need to see the sights to make reliable hits, but Enos writes that he must continuously see the sights in order to make his fastest times. At longer distances it is naturally even more important to use the sights.

 

[alkemyst]

You are mistaken. High level shooters know where each of their shots goes. Only at the very closest distances they will forgo the use of sights in favor of strictly using body index to make the shot, but it's still an aimed shot - they know exactly where it goes - and at those distances they will make both the initial and the follow-up shot with the same kind of focus. Basically they know what they need to make the hit reliably in different situations, and they only shoot after they have that sight picture and/or body position they need. They do not shoot at a certain rhythm and hope for a hit.

Brian Enos writes in his book "Practical Shooting" that one of his normal training exercises is to put ten shots in a 6"x11" target at 7 yards, starting holstered and with his hands up. His training time for this is 2 seconds, of which the initial draw takes around 0.7 seconds which means less than 0.15 seconds between follow-up shots. At such a short distance, an IPSC grandmaster does not need to see the sights to make reliable hits, but Enos writes that he must continuously see the sights in order to make his fastest times. At longer distances it is naturally even more important to use the sights.

There is a different in practice and when something has the potential or is already firing back.

 

[GasX]

I <3 my S&W 3913

It will always fire whatever I put into it, is accurate and is easily concealable.

 

[alkemyst]

I <3 my S&W 3913

It will always fire whatever I put into it, is accurate and is easily concealable.

The Ladysmith is a good gun. 9mm again.

 

[Pia]

There is a different in practice and when something has the potential or is already firing back.

The fundamentals of how to deliver rapid and accurate hits on target are the same, though, and sports shooting methods teach those fundamentals most effectively. It takes many, many times longer to absorb those fundamentals than it takes to absorb basic tactics.

 

[alkemyst]

The fundamentals of how to deliver rapid and accurate hits on target are the same, though, and sports shooting methods teach those fundamentals most effectively. It takes many, many times longer to absorb those fundamentals than it takes to absorb basic tactics.

I think you are debating an issue you don't understand fully.

It's always nice to be able to sight a target. In reality, you often can't.

You are trying to move (run away usually) and so are they. In a perfect world the perp freezes at 10 yards or less and you can just line him up and take him down with a perfect grouping.

 

[Pia]

I think you are debating an issue you don't understand fully.

It's always nice to be able to sight a target. In reality, you often can't.

You are trying to move (run away usually) and so are they.

Shooting on the move and shooting at moving targets use the same fundamentals as any other kind of shooting, and I last did both two days ago in IPSC practice.

In a perfect world the perp freezes at 10 yards or less and you can just line him up and take him down with a perfect grouping.

"Just lining him up" would be tactically stupid in the majority of situations, and "grouping" has nothing to do with a real life situation, so now I think you are debating an issue you don't understand fully.

 

[alkemyst]

Shooting on the move and shooting at moving targets use the same fundamentals as any other kind of shooting, and I last did both two days ago in IPSC practice.
"Just lining him up" would be tactically stupid in the majority of situations, and "grouping" has nothing to do with a real life situation, so now I think you are debating an issue you don't understand fully.

Being able to keep your shots in a group is pretty important in my book, at least if you get them to hit.

We aren't talking target practice in this thread, but we get it...you read a lot about it.

 

[Pia]

Being able to keep your shots in a group is pretty important in my book, at least if you get them to hit.

Always getting a tighter group is the proper goal when practicing accuracy fundamentals.

The practical application of shooting is making reliable hits on target as fast as possible. Since a good shooter makes a tradeoff between speed and accuracy, the "perfect grouping" you mentioned is undesirable. Tight groups relative to the size of the target indicate the shooter wasted time in favor of accuracy that wasn't needed to solve the problem.

We aren't talking target practice in this thread, but we get it...you read a lot about it.

The point was not that I have read a book (... since when does that equal "reading a lot"? ). I supported my view on the importance of sight use and targeting by citing a leading expert who contradicts your and Overvolt's views.

You have repeatedly implied there's some kind of radical split between "target practice" and "practice". The evidence does not support that. Good performance in "practice" is largely based on those same fundamentals, which sports shooting methods develop most consistently. A new shooter looking to learn properly should read up on tactics, but the vast majority of both dry fire and live fire on the range should be roughly the same as if they were preparing for sport, starting from pure accuracy training and proceeding to speed, movement and gunhandling fundamentals. Systematic training and focus on objective results leads to development. Doing any significant amount of live fire on the range in a pseudo-tactical, "let's wing it" mindset which you seemed to be describing is not productive. Improving fundamentals with live fire, or doing proper force on force is productive.

 

[OverVolt]

My main point is that its all just practice, practice, practice. Most of the "Grandmaster ISPC advice" is bullshit. His warm-up routine contradicts the fundamentals they use in competition.

I agree with a non-sighted warm-up and I do it myself at the range like I said. Realistically the sights and muzzleflash are causing the sights to bounce around everywhere. When you fire that rapid its just muscle memory from thousands upon thousands of rounds practicing.

You could change their pistol out to one they are unfamiliar with and fuck them all up in their business lol. What happened to their super fast mental sighting? As they are controlling the recoil they are actually lining up the next shot already and when the sights return to normal they should already be on target and they fire again as the sights close up. Everything else is bullshit. Trigger control, sight picture, and recoil control are all natural instinct from practice and you can practice each one individually, but every single expert who writes a book is bullshitting as to how he actually performs his skill.

 

[alkemyst]

Always getting a tighter group is the proper goal when practicing accuracy fundamentals.

The practical application of shooting is making reliable hits on target as fast as possible. Since a good shooter makes a tradeoff between speed and accuracy, the "perfect grouping" you mentioned is undesirable. Tight groups relative to the size of the target indicate the shooter wasted time in favor of accuracy that wasn't needed to solve the problem.
The point was not that I have read a book (... since when does that equal "reading a lot"? ). I supported my view on the importance of sight use and targeting by citing a leading expert who contradicts your and Overvolt's views.

You have repeatedly implied there's some kind of radical split between "target practice" and "practice". The evidence does not support that. Good performance in "practice" is largely based on those same fundamentals, which sports shooting methods develop most consistently. A new shooter looking to learn properly should read up on tactics, but the vast majority of both dry fire and live fire on the range should be roughly the same as if they were preparing for sport, starting from pure accuracy training and proceeding to speed, movement and gunhandling fundamentals. Systematic training and focus on objective results leads to development. Doing any significant amount of live fire on the range in a pseudo-tactical, "let's wing it" mindset which you seemed to be describing is not productive. Improving fundamentals with live fire, or doing proper force on force is productive.

sounds like you go nuts when someone calls a magazine a clip.

Fight the good fight.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Pia just ignore Alky, he is our resident troll and as is commonly said about him; don't waste more than 10 seconds on his comments.



And you're correct, practicing your sight picture is important - as is doing one handed 'throw it down the range' drills. Alky is picking apart your details trying to find something to poke at.

 

[OverVolt]

Systematic training and focus on objective results leads to development. Doing any significant amount of live fire on the range in a pseudo-tactical, "let's wing it" mindset which you seemed to be describing is not productive. Improving fundamentals with live fire, or doing proper force on force is productive.

I agree you can train individual skills and this is useful but all it really comes down to is number of rounds fired. Psuedo-tactical "let's wing it" is just as good as any training.

 

[shortylickens]

PSA:
The reason they used Beretta 92's/96's has nothing to do with their functionality. They were purchased cuz they were cheap in bulk quantities. The Sig was also up for competition and deemed too expensive.

Nowadays any soldier, cop or security guard who has a choice, always picks Glock or Sig. And its NOT because of the bandwagon effect.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

PSA:
The reason they used Beretta 92's/96's has nothing to do with their functionality. They were purchased cuz they were cheap in bulk quantities. The Sig was also up for competition and deemed too expensive.

Nowadays any soldier, cop or security guard who has a choice, always picks Glock or Sig. And its NOT because of the bandwagon effect.

I agree. The beretta is a good gun, but it was designed to meet a certain budget when purchased in quantity.

 

[dustb0wlkid]

I think you are debating an issue you don't understand fully.

It's always nice to be able to sight a target. In reality, you often can't.

You are trying to move (run away usually) and so are they. In a perfect world the perp freezes at 10 yards or less and you can just line him up and take him down with a perfect grouping.

Most encounters aren't running gun battles in the streets, they are close quarters engagements at distances of less than 20 feet.