Pistol Choices II

[MM60]

"I see nothing illogical with this progression. This is the second time you have called a somewhat common practice (carrying a 1911 and teaching new shooters the basics on simple guns*) illogical."

Well, I was first trained on a full-sized semi-auto, then on a full-sized revolver, and then on an even larger semi-auto. I had no problem with discomfort or accuracy from the recoil of the 9mm, .357 Magnum, or .45 ACP rounds that we fired. I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future. If recoil is that much of a concern - then why not just train people using a semi-auto in .22? You could even teach them using a .22 conversion kit for your 1911.

Just because a practice is common - that doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

 

[Kleanbore]

If these statements are true of your particular area and reflect some amount of correlation, then there is a possibility that this may be a...
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: a prophecy that is declared as truth when it is actually false, which may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.

-Instructors in your area tell new shooters it would be best to start with a revolver (opinion of those who favor revolvers)
-You see new shooters at gun shows in your area looking at/purchasing revolvers (following their instructors' recommendation)
-You relay to others the instructors' opinions and the result of those opinions as seen at the local gun shows (as though it was fact with supporting evidence)
-Over time it is generally accepted as "fact" that revolvers are best for new shooters (because some biased instructors say so, and because some unwitting new shooters take their biased advice)

"Opinion of those who favor revolvers"(?)--Well, no--none of the instructors I know favor revolvers. One, who is a county police officer and former head of the SWAT team and former police sniper, uses semi-autos only--but he responsibly recommended that a relative not familiar with guns who had received a death threat choose a revolver.

"This may be a...Self-Fulfilling Prophecy...declared as truth when it is actually false"(?)--That a revolver is not as sensitive to variations in ammunition or to possible magazine damage or to lack of lubrication is not "actually false." That a DA revolver will not fail to eject upon inadvertent limp-wristing is not "actually false." That some practiced skill is required to immediately identify and remedy a failure to eject, a failure to feed, or a failure to go into battery in a semi-automatic pistol is not "actually false."

"You see new shooters at gun shows in your area looking at/purchasing revolvers (following their instructors' recommendation)"(?)--I didn't ask their reasons.

"Because some biased instructors say so, and because some unwitting new shooters take their biased advice"(?)-- Do you have some evidence of bias? Any reason to suggest it?

So... how would a new shooter eventually get used to using a semi-auto?

Obviously, by shooting one, probably quite a bit, and practicing with it. Until they gain sufficient proficiency, however, they are essentially unarmed. It takes less time to become reasonably proficient with a revolver than with a semi-automatic. There are fewer operations and fewer things to go wrong.

One self defense book I read recently pointed out something that I had not considered. Many authorities, and a number of manufacturers, recommend not carrying a semi-automatic pistol until several hundred rounds have been fired, including, depending upon the source, some number up to several hundred rounds of the selected carry ammunition. That would have ruled out a .380 for defensive carry around here last summer, and the high cost of defensive ammunition could be a factor for many. My M&P Compact does not have a break-in recommendation, but many other models do. Nevertheless, I didn't trust it until I had fired several hundred rounds through it. I'd be happy to carry a revolver after firing fifty rounds through it--or if it were used, five rounds.

Are you implying that, after using a revolver long enough, a new shooter will eventually understand how to manipulate the parts and controls of a semi-auto? Your statement is completely illogical.

Actually, that was not my statement--just your strawman.

I think you are basically suggesting that "newbies" should just get a revolver to carry and not bother to actually learn anything.

Not sure where you got that idea. Before they carry anything they should learn to safely draw, fire, hit the target and reload; learn the basics of self defense; and learn the laws in their jurisdictions.

The revolver vs. semi-automatic debate is a very old one. In larger chamberings, the revolver is much more difficult to conceal in normal dress. The revolver has less ammunition capacity--the main driver in its having been replaced in uniformed police service. Without the new loading aids, it takes longer to reload a revolver.

On the other hand, a revolver is much simpler to learn to operate and is less sensitive to problems with ammunition.

I have a revolver. It's reliable and it fits into a pocket holster very nicely. I don't like the limited capacity, and the long double action pull requires somewhat more frequent practice than my M&P--which, in turn, requires somewhat more frequent practice than my 1911.

That has to do only with practicing the trigger pull, mind you--I have over forty years of experience in using locked-breech and blowback semi-automatics, and I'm quite comfortable with their operation.

The newbie can't say that -- at the beginning.

 

[MM60]

MM60 in all honesty you know next to nothing about 1911s. You have never given them more than a cursory examination. Worse, you believe you do know them. You know next to nothing about revolvers.

As I wrote previously, I owned a Springfield 1911-A1. It required a hex-key to disassemble the recoil spring guide in order to field strip the slide. It was large, heavy, SAO, and not the most reliable shooter. I have seen other people on THR also state that their 1911's required tweaking in order to be reliable shooters. I may not have extensively field tested every 1911 in existence, but I have owned one 1911 and handled many others.

I have owned two revolvers - both GP-100s, and I was trained on a S&W 686 by the Navy. I stated previously that larger-caliber revolvers (.357 and up) are suitable for certain purposes - usually where dangerous animals are involved, and I stated that most semi-autos are basically always better than smaller-caliber revolvers (.38 special and down) for situations involving human aggressors - especially those who may be armed. Anybody who automatically always recommends a small-frame revolver for women and new shooters is obviously biased in favor of revolvers for whatever reason. Revolvers are definitely not a better choice for women or new shooters unless the woman or new shooter is a total airhead and cannot possibly fathom the function of a sem-auto.

 

[Gryffydd]

I have seen other people on THR also state that their 1911's required tweaking in order to be reliable shooters.

I have seen people on THR state that their [insert ANY type of pistol here] required tweaking in order to be reliable shooters.

I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future.

Really? There are a number of great reasons to start new shooters out on .22s It's easier to teach trigger control and sight alignment on a .22. I wouldn't recommend carrying one, but that doesn't invalidate them as a training tool.

 

[NMGonzo]

Glock 35

I own one.

Works for me.

 

[Kleanbore]

Anybody who automatically always recommends a small-frame revolver for women and new shooters is obviously biased in favor of revolvers for whatever reason.

Biased? I don't think so. But he could be wrong.

A larger revolver is probably more suitable for home defense. Also, I've heard store clerks recommend the very light small revolvers in .357 Magnum--bad idea.

Revolvers are definitely not a better choice for women or new shooters unless the woman or new shooter is a total airhead and cannot possibly fathom the function of a sem-auto.

That's a pretty strong statement, and not everyone agrees. It's one thing to be able to "fathom the function" of a mechanical device. It's quite another to be able to operate it properly every time under all conditions until one has gained proficiency--at which time one is no longer really a "new shooter."

Even then the revolver may be a better choice. The person may not shoot very often to maintain adequate familiarity with the gun. For a "gun person" that may not matter--like riding the proverbial bicycle--but for others it might. It's a matter of mechanical aptitude, and people vary. Also, not everyone can operate the slide of a semi-automatic pistol.

And for the new shooter or even for the old, if it's a new gun you're talking about, there's the question of how much ammunition you want to burn before you trust it.

By the way, I don't think that gender enters into the question.

 

[waterhouse]

I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future. If recoil is that much of a concern - then why not just train people using a semi-auto in .22? You could even teach them using a .22 conversion kit for your 1911.

You do know that people shoot for fun right? Not everyone who learns how to shoot a gun intends on carrying one for self defense. I thought that this was common sense, but you seem to think that they only reason to learn how to shoot any gun is to carry that gun in the future.

As for not using a semi auto, a single action revolver is painfully simple. You load it, cock it, pull the trigger.

A semi auto often has a slide release, magazine release, safety, magazine, etc. Explaining these parts takes time, and being concerned about the little levers and buttons can make people nervous when they should be concentrating on the front sight and trigger pull.

 

[MM60]

Ok guys, now - I'm telling you up front that this statement is just my own opinion, but when I hear you saying that you recommend training a new shooter on a single action .22lr revolver, the image that forms in my mind is a crotchety old man trying to teach his 10-year-old grandson how to shoot tin cans off of fence posts back behind his rotting old barn.

You guys are acting like every shooter has to start with little baby steps and work their way up - as though you're the masters of some sort of rites of passage where people have to prove themselves to you before they can be trusted or considered to have any value. My instructors started us out with regular full-sized firearms rather than making us feel like incompetent idiots by making us shoot little old fashioned .22lr revolvers, and we have all done just fine.

Also, I'm done responding to repetitious errors within this thread. If you don't want to read the entire thread - fine, but don't wonder about why I'm not reacting to your posts. (For example, in Kleanbore's post #156, "By the way, I don't think that gender enters into the question." <<<This constitutes a repetitious error.)

 

[Gryffydd]

You guys are acting like every shooter has to start with little baby steps and work their way up

You're the only one saying anybody always has to do anything. You don't HAVE to start with little .22s, I was just pointing out the reasons for doing so because you said

I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future.

Nobody said it had to be a single action .22, that was just an example. And there are some advantages to starting small, especially people who are new to guns. Only puffed up "operators" take offense at shooting rimfire pistols. If you feel like an incompetent idiot because you're learning on a gun that can't kill a bear you have personal problems. Keep in mind also that the mindset of someone learning to shoot a handgun who has never been exposed to guns and is learning for the fun of it or for any other reason than for training in the military may not look at learning to shoot with the same eagerness. Some are scared, some are recoil shy. Why deal with recoil and blast when you're trying to teach someone how to work a trigger and line up sights?

 

[MM60]

Because by having the new shooter use a .22lr single-action revolver for initial training purposes is like a form of political correctness. It's as if you're worried that the slightest wrong move or word will offend the other person and so you're doing everything possible to keep that from happening. I'm sure that any liberal would agree with your desire to use a .22lr single-action revolver for a training gun rather than a "full-power" semi-auto. If you're going to teach somebody how to shoot - you should teach them the right way with a practical handgun right from the start.

 

[Gryffydd]

It's not about being worried about offending them, it's about teaching them one thing at a time. It's simply easier for most people to learn proper shooting without dealing with the recoil. You continue to be unable to grasp that there are people in this world that aren't you... How hard can it be to understand the benefits of training someone on what's easiest to shoot until they get the fundamentals down? "Incompetent idiots" who aren't cool special forces guys like you have to deal with flinching and other issues when they're learning to shoot. It's easier if you can eliminate that variable until they've gotten some practice.

 

[McCall911]

I thought the holiday season was supposed to bring out the best in people.
It's the second one today I've put on my ignore list for "issues."
Pity.

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

This thread is still open? Just face it gentlemen, there are those among us that refuse to learn regardless of what efforts have been made.

 

[MM60]

That's fine with me. I'm going to start some new threads that hopefully won't turn into monsters like this one.

 

[Gryffydd]

I'm going to start some new threads that hopefully won't turn into monsters like this one.

It ended as it started That's the problem with starting a thread with an agenda
Ok, just kidding on that one

 

[MM60]

I'll keep that in mind. Take care