RetiredUSNChief
Member
It would be nice. It would make understanding his perspective a little better.
Threat Management Tool or Gun Fighting Weapon?
- Thread starter CommanderCrusty
- Start date
- Status
I think the OP did a pretty good job of defining his distinction and why it makes sense to him. He acknowledges the fact that he may not have the same presence of mind in a threat situation as he does at the range. His critics seem to have more confidence that they'll perform as they train.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
OK, so the OP has discussed the TDA Ruger as the "best Threat Management Tool" because it's "without a doubt SAFER for holding folks at gunpoint than the 1911". And he seems to be basing that on "...the trigger pull was a lot shorter and lighter. It went off sooner than I expected." Also his entire next paragraph discusses similar aspects which he seems to value in this regard:
"Also, the features on the Ruger make it safer for moving around in a public place, for routine administrative handling, for walking around my home (and the dog, and the furniture and the black cat, and the clumps of cloths that didn't make it into the laundry). I also prefer the features of the Ruger in a struggle for the weapon, or when getting near someone who might be a threat to me. That's what I like about the slide mounted safety, double action trigger pull and the magazine disconnect."
Then he goes on to say that the 1911 is a "better Gun Fighting Weapon" for reasons stated.
On the other hand, if you really needed a pistol to save your life Right Now, I believe, very firmly, that the 1911 is a better Gun Fighting Weapon.
These terms confuse me for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that there's no discussion of any such characteristics anywhere else in the gun community. Common vernacular is essential in understanding.
So is he saying people need to carry two weapons for self-defense, a "Threat Management Tool" and a "Gun Fighting Weapon"? Or is he simply creating new terminology to describe different facets of self-defense weapons and tactics? Or is he simply saying that guns of different designs should be handled differently accordingly, for the use one makes of them?
By definition for one who carrys a gun for self-defense, Gun Fighting IS Threat Control, whether the gun is actually fired or not in any given conflict.
This is particularly telling: "having shot them both, I will be using the 1911 a bit differently now".
Personally, I think that goes without saying. Certianly Glock owners are quick to point out the differences between Glocks and 1911's. How they look at things is different; for example, no manually activated safety means you cannot forget to disengage the safety in the heat of conflict. A plus for both "Threat Control" and "Gun Fighting" in their minds, obviously. But the OP may consider this bad for "Threat Management" while being good for "Gun Fighting".
Personally, I feel that my gun should be just as ready to use for "Threat Management" as for "Gun Fighting". I have no business holding somebody at gunpoint with any gun that isn't immediately in a condition to shoot once my finger is on the trigger. If my gun is not in that condition, then it's useless for both "Threat Management" and "Gun Fighting".
ALL THAT SAID:
It is commendable that the OP has actively thought out the differences in both of these platforms and what that can mean during actual use. Many people with multiple firearms don't seem to appreciate what the (sometimes little) differences from one platform to another can mean when performance under stress is required. The differences ARE important and if one doesn't train on them then there are apt to be some potentially unpleasant consequences as a result.
That's a lesson we can all take home.
"Also, the features on the Ruger make it safer for moving around in a public place, for routine administrative handling, for walking around my home (and the dog, and the furniture and the black cat, and the clumps of cloths that didn't make it into the laundry). I also prefer the features of the Ruger in a struggle for the weapon, or when getting near someone who might be a threat to me. That's what I like about the slide mounted safety, double action trigger pull and the magazine disconnect."
Then he goes on to say that the 1911 is a "better Gun Fighting Weapon" for reasons stated.
On the other hand, if you really needed a pistol to save your life Right Now, I believe, very firmly, that the 1911 is a better Gun Fighting Weapon.
These terms confuse me for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that there's no discussion of any such characteristics anywhere else in the gun community. Common vernacular is essential in understanding.
So is he saying people need to carry two weapons for self-defense, a "Threat Management Tool" and a "Gun Fighting Weapon"? Or is he simply creating new terminology to describe different facets of self-defense weapons and tactics? Or is he simply saying that guns of different designs should be handled differently accordingly, for the use one makes of them?
By definition for one who carrys a gun for self-defense, Gun Fighting IS Threat Control, whether the gun is actually fired or not in any given conflict.
This is particularly telling: "having shot them both, I will be using the 1911 a bit differently now".
Personally, I think that goes without saying. Certianly Glock owners are quick to point out the differences between Glocks and 1911's. How they look at things is different; for example, no manually activated safety means you cannot forget to disengage the safety in the heat of conflict. A plus for both "Threat Control" and "Gun Fighting" in their minds, obviously. But the OP may consider this bad for "Threat Management" while being good for "Gun Fighting".
Personally, I feel that my gun should be just as ready to use for "Threat Management" as for "Gun Fighting". I have no business holding somebody at gunpoint with any gun that isn't immediately in a condition to shoot once my finger is on the trigger. If my gun is not in that condition, then it's useless for both "Threat Management" and "Gun Fighting".
ALL THAT SAID:
It is commendable that the OP has actively thought out the differences in both of these platforms and what that can mean during actual use. Many people with multiple firearms don't seem to appreciate what the (sometimes little) differences from one platform to another can mean when performance under stress is required. The differences ARE important and if one doesn't train on them then there are apt to be some potentially unpleasant consequences as a result.
That's a lesson we can all take home.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Look, the OP has had plenty of time to try to explain the distinctions he's created, and he's not girded up his courage to re-enter the discussion and try to do so.
Hopefully the message has gotten through that there is NO valid distinction between the terms he invented.
You're either in a gunfight -- that is you are FIGHTING with a gun -- or you are not. You are either in sudden, immediate, realistic, and present risk to your life, or you are not. You are either carrying a weapon with which to address such a threat, or you are not.
You are not choosing a weapon based on whether you will "manage threats" or be "gun fighting."
That's kind of like saying that you choose a particular car because you'll be DRIVING it, but you'd choose a different car if you think you'll need to STOP.
So, that means there's no distinction to discuss here, beyond which gun do you feel most comfortable with for BOTH tasks. And we've had those discussions thousands of times.
Hopefully the message has gotten through that there is NO valid distinction between the terms he invented.
You're either in a gunfight -- that is you are FIGHTING with a gun -- or you are not. You are either in sudden, immediate, realistic, and present risk to your life, or you are not. You are either carrying a weapon with which to address such a threat, or you are not.
You are not choosing a weapon based on whether you will "manage threats" or be "gun fighting."
That's kind of like saying that you choose a particular car because you'll be DRIVING it, but you'd choose a different car if you think you'll need to STOP.
So, that means there's no distinction to discuss here, beyond which gun do you feel most comfortable with for BOTH tasks. And we've had those discussions thousands of times.
- Status
