You really put that little importance on familiarity with a specific platform? I'm sure I could dribble more bullets out the barrel with a Glock but that does not indicate proficiency. IMHO, skill with your particular weapon is FAR more important than the weapon's type....i would bet that most of them could put more rounds on target faster with a DA-revolver or a semi-auto.
You really put that little importance on familiarity with a specific platform? I'm sure I could dribble more bullets out the barrel with a Glock but that does not indicate proficiency. IMHO, skill with your particular weapon is FAR more important than the weapon's type.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Proficiency is the key and you are completely disregarding it in favor of platform. By your logic, proficiency with one handgun is proficiency with all and it just doesn't work that way. That's why we train with one specific firearm or at least one particular platform, to build skill with that platform. I'm a perfect example of this. For years, I was limited to public ranges and could only go every so often. So when I went, I took several guns and shot them all a little. For the most part, I was mostly just making noise. I found that by focusing on one gun or platform at a time but shooting it several times a week and with deliberation, my skill with that platform increased exponentially. By your logic I could spend a year shooting strictly 1911's and then pick up a Glock and shoot and manipulate it just as well. It's simply not true.well, we could conduct an experiment: go to an SASS even an have all competetors shoot the pistol stages with both their stock gun and then again with a semi-auto. my bet (and yes, i am only speculating) is that the time averages for the semi-autos--even in the hands of these very proficient single action shooters--will be better.
I can't speak for exMachina, but what I get from his posts is that he is asserting that, if apples are compared to apples, and oranges to oranges, the bottom feeders would provide a more formidable weapon to any given person if he trains with it. Of course, if a shooter practices to be a wizard with a single action revolver, like many shooters have done, he is a force to be reconed with. But, I think the point made above, with which I agree, is that if that same shooter, instead, trained with the same decication using a semiauto, he would be better armed in more situations than he would be as a shooter dedicated to single action revolver shooting.
That pretty much goes without saying. My point is that there are those of us who have no desire to do as much shooting with what some would deem a more appropriate self defense weapon as we do our single actions. One very good reason is that the single action revolver can do it all. From plinking to long range shooting, woods bummin', hunting, self defense, etc. A Glock is a self defense weapon and nothing more. It's not a target pistol, it does not lend itself well to accurate shooting at longer ranges, it is not a hunting weapon and is no good for defense against anything bigger or meaner than a coyote or gangsta. So the question is, would I rather use something I am intimately familiar with or something that I am vaguely familiar with? Or practice with something that is nothing but a soulless tool? I think I know the answer. I'd rather tote a whoopin' than spend the amount of time I spend with single actions, with polymer autos....if that same shooter, instead, trained with the same decication using a semiauto, he would be better armed in more situations than he would be as a shooter dedicated to single action revolver shooting.