Andrew Wyatt
Member
I've shot in the dark. I've shot at short range. I've shot at multiple targets. while i've done that, i've never wished my handgun was smaller, had worse sights or had a heavier trigger.
David E said:Oh, it's easy to grasp, it's just too silly and short-sighted of a "concept" to take seriously.
Who among us can predict with 100% certainty that our confrontation will take place so close that the best tactic is to press the muzzle into the single hostile target? Anyone?
Using such a scenario to justify NOT practicing is......curious.
The encounter might be that close, but it might not. And over 40% of the time, there are multiple opponents.
I'm sure those that embrace the "no need to practice" doctrine would think when confronted by 3 badguys, "I'm sure glad I didn't practice any of this crap!"
Do you think someone well practiced couldn't press the muzzle into the target if necessary ? Or do you think they'd say, "Sir, you're much too close and I can't use my sights and preferred technique. Would you back up, please?"
Me, I'll continue to practice.
You're missing the point. The J-frames are designed for just such a confrontation, close in.
To kvetch that they don't live up to a standard for which they weren't designed is pointless.
Guns like the J-frames are designed for a specific purpose and they are very good tools for that purpose.
It seems to me that many denizens of gun forums prepare for the mythical long distance urban firefight,
you do engage in such a confrontation, you'd damn well better keep a good attorney on retainer.
And nowhere did I say or imply not to practice.
Big John said:Exactly. I don't why this concept is so hard to grasp
Carrying a gun that you are ineffective with beyond 3 feet with the justification that "it was made to be a contact distance belly gun" is a concept I don't get.
News flash: The gun you choose to carry does not dicate the situation you may find yourself in.