Wylycoyte
Member
The man often seems like the Jack Handy of the firearms world to me, but I must admit I consider what he has to say, even if I wind up rejecting it.
Is It Just Me, Or Does Jeff Cooper . . .
- Thread starter bad_dad_brad
- Start date
- Status
Cooper has had his own learning curve with the mighty 1911. Read some of the things he wrote about in the late 50's/early 60's, that it wasn't accurate nor was it designed to be, the "death trap" grip safety and all that. Makes me wonder why he was involved on the D&D 10mm if he thought the 1911 was the do all and end all? I do like the fact that as he learned, ole Jeff passed the lessons on.
Spoonman
Member
Everybody is entitled to their opinion and we, as a forum, are very opinionated folks (or we wouldn't be here). I'd like to think I've learned from the good colonel, as well as from some (many) of our members. On a personal level, never having met Col. Cooper, I like and respect him. Hey, I'm nearly 50. I like having a good role model for being a tough, salty, plain-talking old man. 
Harold Mayo
Member
Gotta jump in...
Cooper's writing style is bad? Entirely subjective. I happen to enjoy the style. I remember reading a review of the most recent adaptation of the book "Last of the Mohicans" by James Fenimore Cooper into a movie (starring Daniel Day Lewis). The reviewer said that he tried to read the book before seeing the movie but found that Cooper's writing style was antiquated and entirely too wordy. Hmmm...I wonder if the guy realized that the book was written in a TIME that he would consider antiquated. Trying to compare "Last of the Mohicans" to a modern-day book by someone like Dean Koontz, Stephen King, or some other popular modern author is ridiculous. Does it make the book less good because it is written in a style that the individual reader dislikes? Only for that reader. I suppose Shakespeare's writing style is too antiquated.
Sexist and a xenophobe? Probably so. The role of women in Jeff Cooper's youth was far different than it is perceived to be now...and today's view will likely be considered antiquated in another 60 years. Does that make our views wrong? Xenophobic? If a patriot who firmly believes in the classic ideals of what the United States should be and what it should represent is a xenophobe, then count me in. Both of these terms are subjective.
I do not agree with everything that he says, but he has an opinion to which he gives voice and he stands by that opinion and holds that opinion for a reason, right or wrong. Just because he doesn't "dumb down" his writings or bow to political correctness doesn't make his opinion any less worthwhile. We would do well to have more MEN like him again. That generation and its ideals are dying out and we are the worse for it.
Finally, on the 1911, I must say that I have tried pretty much everything else (Glocks, Sigs, P7s) that many hold to be superior designs and I keep going back to the 1911 (and the hi-power). There is just no better handgun for all-around use. John Moses Browning WAS a genius and the veritable god of firearms design. His firearms are STILL some of the best available, even nearly a century after their initial introduction. There are many good innovations and other handguns, but the 1911 is STILL the standard by which others are judged. How often do you hear anyone saying, "The Sig is better than the Glock and this is why"? Rarely, because everyone is concerned with debunking the 1911 myth. And we're not talking raceguns, either. Even if we were, why aren't more people using souped-up Glocks and Sigs in competitions against the souped-up 1911s?
Cooper's writing style is bad? Entirely subjective. I happen to enjoy the style. I remember reading a review of the most recent adaptation of the book "Last of the Mohicans" by James Fenimore Cooper into a movie (starring Daniel Day Lewis). The reviewer said that he tried to read the book before seeing the movie but found that Cooper's writing style was antiquated and entirely too wordy. Hmmm...I wonder if the guy realized that the book was written in a TIME that he would consider antiquated. Trying to compare "Last of the Mohicans" to a modern-day book by someone like Dean Koontz, Stephen King, or some other popular modern author is ridiculous. Does it make the book less good because it is written in a style that the individual reader dislikes? Only for that reader. I suppose Shakespeare's writing style is too antiquated.
Sexist and a xenophobe? Probably so. The role of women in Jeff Cooper's youth was far different than it is perceived to be now...and today's view will likely be considered antiquated in another 60 years. Does that make our views wrong? Xenophobic? If a patriot who firmly believes in the classic ideals of what the United States should be and what it should represent is a xenophobe, then count me in. Both of these terms are subjective.
I do not agree with everything that he says, but he has an opinion to which he gives voice and he stands by that opinion and holds that opinion for a reason, right or wrong. Just because he doesn't "dumb down" his writings or bow to political correctness doesn't make his opinion any less worthwhile. We would do well to have more MEN like him again. That generation and its ideals are dying out and we are the worse for it.
Finally, on the 1911, I must say that I have tried pretty much everything else (Glocks, Sigs, P7s) that many hold to be superior designs and I keep going back to the 1911 (and the hi-power). There is just no better handgun for all-around use. John Moses Browning WAS a genius and the veritable god of firearms design. His firearms are STILL some of the best available, even nearly a century after their initial introduction. There are many good innovations and other handguns, but the 1911 is STILL the standard by which others are judged. How often do you hear anyone saying, "The Sig is better than the Glock and this is why"? Rarely, because everyone is concerned with debunking the 1911 myth. And we're not talking raceguns, either. Even if we were, why aren't more people using souped-up Glocks and Sigs in competitions against the souped-up 1911s?
Keith
Member
If you don't think Cooper is correct on the 1911, it's easy to disprove.
Simply set up a combat competition using any scenario you like and invite as many people, with as many gun styles as possible, to participate.
What you'll find is that the 1911 shooters will dominate the top of the list because the style of gun is quicker to get into action, has a superior trigger system, etc. I'm not even going to argue calibers or magazine size, because there are 1911 variants to cover any of that.
Glocks don't dominate (or even compete well) in combat competitions because the long trigger is harder to use effectively under duress. Revolvers don't compete well because they are slower to reload. SA/DA systems have the difference in trigger weights to overcome.
That doesn't mean that any style of handgun can't be an excellent choice for defense, obviously the man behind the gun is the determining factor in a gun fight. It's just that the 1911 has fewer drawbacks to overcome and that's why when you actually MEASURE performance (as in a competition), the 1911 rises to the top. You are free to say that a competition doesn't measure real-world performance, and in many cases that is quite true - I mean, something requiring a 3K "racegun" with MOA accuracy doesn't mean much in the real world. But any of these "move and shoot" competitions certainly do.
Heck, design your own shoot with any realistic criteria you like and see. I'll bet the top spots are taken by 1911 shooters.
Keith
Simply set up a combat competition using any scenario you like and invite as many people, with as many gun styles as possible, to participate.
What you'll find is that the 1911 shooters will dominate the top of the list because the style of gun is quicker to get into action, has a superior trigger system, etc. I'm not even going to argue calibers or magazine size, because there are 1911 variants to cover any of that.
Glocks don't dominate (or even compete well) in combat competitions because the long trigger is harder to use effectively under duress. Revolvers don't compete well because they are slower to reload. SA/DA systems have the difference in trigger weights to overcome.
That doesn't mean that any style of handgun can't be an excellent choice for defense, obviously the man behind the gun is the determining factor in a gun fight. It's just that the 1911 has fewer drawbacks to overcome and that's why when you actually MEASURE performance (as in a competition), the 1911 rises to the top. You are free to say that a competition doesn't measure real-world performance, and in many cases that is quite true - I mean, something requiring a 3K "racegun" with MOA accuracy doesn't mean much in the real world. But any of these "move and shoot" competitions certainly do.
Heck, design your own shoot with any realistic criteria you like and see. I'll bet the top spots are taken by 1911 shooters.
Keith
Keith
Member
Weaver vs isosceles.
I've taught a number of people to shoot handguns. All fairly informally, family members and friends, etc.
Anyway, almost without exception I've found that people who have experience with rifles and/or shotguns tend to prefer the Weaver, while complete novices to guns tend to prefer the isosceles.
I *think* the Weaver feels right to rifle shooters because it mimics the position of the rifleman, something they've already mastered and feel comfortable with. If that's true, then the isoscelese may be the more natural and ergonomic position since the novices tend to prefer it and have no pre-learned habits to overcome.
Or... my experiences may not be wide enough to support such a conclusion.
What do you guys think? Have you noted a difference in stance preference between those who started on rifles and those who came to the handgun first?
Keith
I've taught a number of people to shoot handguns. All fairly informally, family members and friends, etc.
Anyway, almost without exception I've found that people who have experience with rifles and/or shotguns tend to prefer the Weaver, while complete novices to guns tend to prefer the isosceles.
I *think* the Weaver feels right to rifle shooters because it mimics the position of the rifleman, something they've already mastered and feel comfortable with. If that's true, then the isoscelese may be the more natural and ergonomic position since the novices tend to prefer it and have no pre-learned habits to overcome.
Or... my experiences may not be wide enough to support such a conclusion.
What do you guys think? Have you noted a difference in stance preference between those who started on rifles and those who came to the handgun first?
Keith
Pendragon
Member
on "modern technology"
I greatly enjoy reading the writings of Mr. Cooper. One of the things I like about his writing is that so many people get bent out of shape by it. I would not put things the way he puts them, but I do think he has more than earned the right to speak his mind.
I would like to go to Gunsite while he is still with us, but that does not seem likely to happen.
Now - as to the 1911 vs. the world arguments:
Now, if you changed that to read:
Then I would have no argument with you.
I think the arguments about the 1911 being "outdated" are just ridiculous. I really do not care how "modern" or "hi-tech" your pistol is. The fact that something is "hi-tech" means nothing to me. It is a stupid marketing term that people throw around to catch suckers.
Guess what? For less than $10.00, you can make a watch that will keep perfect time, is easy to manufacture, never needs servicing (since it is replaceable) and comes in a variety of fashion colors.
So why the hell do people still buy old fashioned mechanical watches? Why do they pay so much for "old technology"? A lot of lesser mechanical watches keep poor time - sure the top of the line stuff is awsome, but who can afford it?
In my entire life, I will probably never own a Sig, an H&K, a Glock or any other poly pistol.
Understand, I am not an old curmudgeon - I work in the "hi-tech field" and have for a decade. I have a cutting edge PC and I own all manner of new fangled gadgets like TiVo and a pocket computer.
I have nothing against the newer designs - if people like them, they should buy them. But my 1911 and my revolvers are "low tech" guns and I like it that way. To me, new also means "unproven" (or less proven).
I understand how my 1911 works, I can take it apart easily. I shoot it tons better than any other gun and I have tried most of them. It is made out of the best steel available and fitted with a degree of precision that is not possible with mass production techniques (1911 newbies take note). It is extremely accurate and has never failed to go bang when it is supposed to.
Yes, some 1911s are unreliable, but to say it is due to the design is like saying that because my Fiat broke all the time, the internal combustion engine cannot be trusted.
The only other handguns I trust to be as reliable are revolvers.
Newer <> Better
I greatly enjoy reading the writings of Mr. Cooper. One of the things I like about his writing is that so many people get bent out of shape by it. I would not put things the way he puts them, but I do think he has more than earned the right to speak his mind.
I would like to go to Gunsite while he is still with us, but that does not seem likely to happen.
Now - as to the 1911 vs. the world arguments:
Now, if you changed that to read:
Then I would have no argument with you.
I think the arguments about the 1911 being "outdated" are just ridiculous. I really do not care how "modern" or "hi-tech" your pistol is. The fact that something is "hi-tech" means nothing to me. It is a stupid marketing term that people throw around to catch suckers.
Guess what? For less than $10.00, you can make a watch that will keep perfect time, is easy to manufacture, never needs servicing (since it is replaceable) and comes in a variety of fashion colors.
So why the hell do people still buy old fashioned mechanical watches? Why do they pay so much for "old technology"? A lot of lesser mechanical watches keep poor time - sure the top of the line stuff is awsome, but who can afford it?
In my entire life, I will probably never own a Sig, an H&K, a Glock or any other poly pistol.
Understand, I am not an old curmudgeon - I work in the "hi-tech field" and have for a decade. I have a cutting edge PC and I own all manner of new fangled gadgets like TiVo and a pocket computer.
I have nothing against the newer designs - if people like them, they should buy them. But my 1911 and my revolvers are "low tech" guns and I like it that way. To me, new also means "unproven" (or less proven).
I understand how my 1911 works, I can take it apart easily. I shoot it tons better than any other gun and I have tried most of them. It is made out of the best steel available and fitted with a degree of precision that is not possible with mass production techniques (1911 newbies take note). It is extremely accurate and has never failed to go bang when it is supposed to.
Yes, some 1911s are unreliable, but to say it is due to the design is like saying that because my Fiat broke all the time, the internal combustion engine cannot be trusted.
The only other handguns I trust to be as reliable are revolvers.
Newer <> Better
bad_dad_brad
Member
Wow, this thread sure took off.
OKAY! I am just going to have to add a M1911 to my collection. Gee you folks do like to spend my money!
OKAY! I am just going to have to add a M1911 to my collection. Gee you folks do like to spend my money!
Pendragon
Member
Yep.
Push the right buttons...
Push the right buttons...
I think the problem with ten-dollar words is that too many of today's readers graduated from two-bit schools. Reading is becoming an endangered skill.
In another vain: How many other handguns have been copied by so many companies as the Colt Government Model? There must be a market for them. Even Smith & Wesson is about too get into the act. John Browning's 1911 design has lasted almost a century with only a few minor modifications. Will the more modern competitors be able too do the same?
In another vain: How many other handguns have been copied by so many companies as the Colt Government Model? There must be a market for them. Even Smith & Wesson is about too get into the act. John Browning's 1911 design has lasted almost a century with only a few minor modifications. Will the more modern competitors be able too do the same?
DrDremel
Member
I grew up reading Cooper's articles in my dad's gun rags. Now as a 32 year old, I must say that there is very little I disagree with from his writings, other than the quality of his daughter's poems. He is a wise old man that speaks his mind. If you have bought or shot a handgun in the last 20 years, if you have ever taken any class on handguns, you owe him as he was one of the founders of the modern pistolcraft as it is taught today. He talks of the decline in responsibility and dignity, chracter in the people born in the 1960's-through today. For the most part his is right.
Butch
Member
If I'm not mistaken he has spent no small amount of time in combat as well.
His writings have taught me a heck of a lot not only about shooting rifles and pistols, but also about life and the responsibilities of a man. As a 30-something Col. Cooper's writings had great impact on me as a teenager and young adult.
As for 1911's, I too, have tried and owned everything from G21's, USP's, Sig 220's and have ALWAYS come "home" to a 1911. That does not mean that I dislike these other weapons, but to echo another post again, the 1911 is the yardstick by which all others are measured.
Whether someone agrees with the Col.'s commentaries or not, all shooters owe something to him for the state of weapons craft today.
So lets all hoist a glass of Bombay to the man and thank the good Lord we've had the honor and pleasure of walking the same earth with the Col.
As for 1911's, I too, have tried and owned everything from G21's, USP's, Sig 220's and have ALWAYS come "home" to a 1911. That does not mean that I dislike these other weapons, but to echo another post again, the 1911 is the yardstick by which all others are measured.
Whether someone agrees with the Col.'s commentaries or not, all shooters owe something to him for the state of weapons craft today.
So lets all hoist a glass of Bombay to the man and thank the good Lord we've had the honor and pleasure of walking the same earth with the Col.
Zander
member
But that's not what 'ditto' means at all. If you had actually listened to what Rush and his callers have had to say rather than trust what some disaffected whiner gave you as a defintion, you'd know that.
Col. Cooper is a gentleman and an officer...still. I admire his writings because they are at once sparse, entertaining and educational. If you don't understand every word or reference he uses, buy a dictionary [preferably an older, non-PC edition] and avail yourself of a good thesaurus.
You might actually add a word or two to your vocabulary...
Precisely! Most of the "graduates" of today's government indoctrination centers imagine that a good vocabulary is expressed by monosyllabic utterances...half of them vulgar or obscene. Indeed, remove the swear words and a half-dozen phrases [ya know what I mean?] from their vocabularies and most would be rendered mute.
sixgun_symphony
member
Cooper had some good things to say about the CZ-75.
So why do some people claim that Cooper is not open to new pistol technology?
So why do some people claim that Cooper is not open to new pistol technology?
Old Fuff nailed it.
pax
If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in a weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. -- Ray Bradbury said it, but I bet Jeff Cooper would agree!
Pendragon
Member
One thing I like about Cooper - reading about his opinions on all the "new" rifle cartridges.
I have to say that not being a big rifle guy, it does seem puzzling to see a few dozen cartridges that shoot ~.308 sized rounds.
When I get a few rifles, I will own them in .45-75 (lever and single shot) .308 (bolt) .223 (EBR) and .22LR
Before I read Jeff Cooper, I would have thought I needed the most expensive "tactical" rifle imaginable.
His discriptions of practical marksmanship and the skills of most people have convinced me that if I am hunting, I do not need MOA accuracy, I need a modicum of marksmanship skill and good sense to shoot inside of about 200 yards.
Reading Cooper made me understand more about hunting and want to learn how to do it properly and pass it to my son.
I like when he talks about going hunting and coming back without a kill - people say "oh, sorry you wasted your time" and he thinks "it was not a waste, I was HUNTING!" As in - its the journey, not the destination...
I have to say that not being a big rifle guy, it does seem puzzling to see a few dozen cartridges that shoot ~.308 sized rounds.
When I get a few rifles, I will own them in .45-75 (lever and single shot) .308 (bolt) .223 (EBR) and .22LR
Before I read Jeff Cooper, I would have thought I needed the most expensive "tactical" rifle imaginable.
His discriptions of practical marksmanship and the skills of most people have convinced me that if I am hunting, I do not need MOA accuracy, I need a modicum of marksmanship skill and good sense to shoot inside of about 200 yards.
Reading Cooper made me understand more about hunting and want to learn how to do it properly and pass it to my son.
I like when he talks about going hunting and coming back without a kill - people say "oh, sorry you wasted your time" and he thinks "it was not a waste, I was HUNTING!" As in - its the journey, not the destination...
Pendragon:
I respect the man's service to our country and freedom. BUT "the right to speak one's mind" belongs to all in this country in accordance with the freedom of speech, not just salty Grognards. What Cooper did earn (from me as well as from many others apparently) was respect.
I don't get that at all. I find his writings to be full of lordly proclamations, but not necessarily full of "difficult" words. I would think that anyone who graduated from a university was exposed to more "difficult" vocabulary than that employed by Cooper.
ReadyontheRight
Member
It's worked though, hasn't it?
Sure, Col. Cooper champions the 1911 to the exclusion of other good combat-worthy weapons that have come along in the past twenty or thirty years: but his championship of it is based on extensive testing and vast experience. He doesn't have that with newer designs
I could not agree more Preacherman. No one could have said it better.
I once thought, just as Cooper once did that in 100 years surely something must have come along or would come along that was better than the 1911. I tried just about every new hangun that has come out in the last 35 years and just as Cooper did I came full circle back to the 1911.
I can think of no other full size combat gun that I was able to completely strip down to the frame in seconds and with the use of no tools whatsoever.
I can think of few handguns that were so rugged that you could use them for a club and they would not fly apart or break.
First hit probablilty and reliabilty with 1911's built to John Browning specs are legendary.
1911's dominate just about every type of pistol competition and are the first choice of world class champion shooters in bullsyeye competition. Nothing else even comes close.
The 1911 has been the benchmark by which every gun writer worth his salt has compared all pistols that came before and came after it.
I like the Colonel's style of writing and even though I often do not agree with him he gives me pause for thought and he is certainly entertaining and controversial. Such a pleasant change from the politically correct crowd of mundane , transparent, crowd pleasing , inexperienced, and shallow writers that one finds haunting many of todays gun rags.
The Colonel's integrity is without question, his experience without peer, his advice well worth pondering. And when he goes west he will be regarded as highly as the legendary gun writers of yesteryear such as Jack O'Conner, Elmer Keith, Townsend Welen, Charles Askins, Ted Trublood, Warren Page, Nash Buckingham, Corey Ford, and John Taylor.
I think the 1911 will be with us in the shooting world for a long, long time to come and considering what is available out there in regards to the competition it is easy to see why.
I could not agree more Preacherman. No one could have said it better.
I once thought, just as Cooper once did that in 100 years surely something must have come along or would come along that was better than the 1911. I tried just about every new hangun that has come out in the last 35 years and just as Cooper did I came full circle back to the 1911.
I can think of no other full size combat gun that I was able to completely strip down to the frame in seconds and with the use of no tools whatsoever.
I can think of few handguns that were so rugged that you could use them for a club and they would not fly apart or break.
First hit probablilty and reliabilty with 1911's built to John Browning specs are legendary.
1911's dominate just about every type of pistol competition and are the first choice of world class champion shooters in bullsyeye competition. Nothing else even comes close.
The 1911 has been the benchmark by which every gun writer worth his salt has compared all pistols that came before and came after it.
I like the Colonel's style of writing and even though I often do not agree with him he gives me pause for thought and he is certainly entertaining and controversial. Such a pleasant change from the politically correct crowd of mundane , transparent, crowd pleasing , inexperienced, and shallow writers that one finds haunting many of todays gun rags.
The Colonel's integrity is without question, his experience without peer, his advice well worth pondering. And when he goes west he will be regarded as highly as the legendary gun writers of yesteryear such as Jack O'Conner, Elmer Keith, Townsend Welen, Charles Askins, Ted Trublood, Warren Page, Nash Buckingham, Corey Ford, and John Taylor.
I think the 1911 will be with us in the shooting world for a long, long time to come and considering what is available out there in regards to the competition it is easy to see why.
bad_dad_brad
Member
BHP9 wrote:
"I think the 1911 will be with us in the shooting world for a long, long time to come and considering what is available out there in regards to the competition it is easy to see why."
I totally agree. As a single action semi-auto, it may have not any peer, except for the new CZ-75SA or a SIG 210. No matter, they are all John Browning clones.
I just think for everyday use, other pistols are better and safer.
And I agree with everyone's comments on Jeff Cooper, pros and cons. It is good to share opinions! Thanks all THGers for this useful and entertaining thread.
"I think the 1911 will be with us in the shooting world for a long, long time to come and considering what is available out there in regards to the competition it is easy to see why."
I totally agree. As a single action semi-auto, it may have not any peer, except for the new CZ-75SA or a SIG 210. No matter, they are all John Browning clones.
I just think for everyday use, other pistols are better and safer.
And I agree with everyone's comments on Jeff Cooper, pros and cons. It is good to share opinions! Thanks all THGers for this useful and entertaining thread.
Pendragon
Member
brad:
Say what you will about the 1911, but it is one of the safest pistols ever created.
Bahadur:
Excuse me. I was not suggesting that only certain men like Jeff Cooper have the right to speak their mind. If that is how you took what I wrote, then you should seek to further your understanding of our society.
As I wrote it, the word "Right" which, in the context I used it, is defined as That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
You protest that we all have the "right" to speak our minds. I reject that assertion because in our society, much of what a lot of us would like to say is seen as "unjust", "morally bad", "improper" and "unfitting". However legal.
Much of what some people say is "improper and unfitting" because they lack the experience and wisdom of the years.
Well I speak very differently to people I respect and people I do not respect. I suspect that most people do the same and that is why I said what I said. It seems a small matter to bring it up like you did.
Say what you will about the 1911, but it is one of the safest pistols ever created.
Bahadur:
Excuse me. I was not suggesting that only certain men like Jeff Cooper have the right to speak their mind. If that is how you took what I wrote, then you should seek to further your understanding of our society.
As I wrote it, the word "Right" which, in the context I used it, is defined as That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
You protest that we all have the "right" to speak our minds. I reject that assertion because in our society, much of what a lot of us would like to say is seen as "unjust", "morally bad", "improper" and "unfitting". However legal.
Much of what some people say is "improper and unfitting" because they lack the experience and wisdom of the years.
Well I speak very differently to people I respect and people I do not respect. I suspect that most people do the same and that is why I said what I said. It seems a small matter to bring it up like you did.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Side note: can anybody actually provide evidence (read: quotes) of Jeff Cooper to prove that he is racist or sexist? Just curious, because I've even flipped through his way-old books and not found any such thing.
Historical oddity: in one of his old books, he explains the virtues of Tequilla, apparently before it had "caught on"in the U.S.A.
Historical oddity: in one of his old books, he explains the virtues of Tequilla, apparently before it had "caught on"in the U.S.A.
- Status
