gorcorps
aka Brandon
- Jul 18, 2004
- 30,739
- 452
- 126
you really shouldn't chew your nails
Mine look a hell of a lot worse than that
you really shouldn't chew your nails
Mine look a hell of a lot worse than that
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.
What do you mean by 'sighting game'? Are you using some kind of point shooting methodology with no sight picture?When I am at the range with a handgun I am going for quick shots. Not playing the 'sighting' game.
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?
all the shots including the follow-up shots are made with a sight picture, and are both quick and accurate.
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 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.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.
I <3 my S&W 3913
It will always fire whatever I put into it, is accurate and is easily concealable.
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.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.
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.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.
"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.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.
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.
Always getting a tighter group is the proper goal when practicing accuracy fundamentals.Being able to keep your shots in a group is pretty important in my book, at least if you get them to hit.
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.We aren't talking target practice in this thread, but we get it...you read a lot about it.
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.
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.
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 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.