OK, I guess the part I'm wondering about is that you can fine tune them "better" than the Glock.
Tips For First Time Gun Buyers
- Thread starter kristian roger
- Start date
OK, I guess the part I'm wondering about is that you can fine tune them "better" than the Glock.
Bruce7
Black Belt
Your right I can not fine tune the HK45 double action better than a Glock double action period.
Having said that the single action of a HK45 is better than a Glock action.
The Glock Larry Vickers owns has been gunsmith by people who really know what they are doing.
Maybe if a gunsmith Larry Vickers knows, worked on your Glock it might be as good as a single action HK45, I don't know.
I will never get the chance to fire one Larry Vickers Glocks.
Bruce7
Black Belt
Back when police officers carried revolvers, I read an article about effective hollow points using actual fire fights.
It slanted towards 45, but I came to a conclusion unrelated to their premise.
A 22 year old bad guy wearing a heavy coat with a 9mm semi auto pistol with hollow points.
A 23 year old officer with 14 months experience with a 357 with hollow points.
A 38 year old officer with 16 years experience with a 38 special with lead bullets
The 22 year old and the 23 year old started shooting without cover.
The 22 year old shot 9 times hitting the 23 year old once in the shoulder.
Because the bullet hit bone the hollow expanded and caused massive damage to his shoulder.
The 23 year old hit the 22 year old twice firing 6 shots, but because of the heavy coat and not hitting bone the hollow point had no expansion.
The 38 year old took cover and from kneeling position fired twice hitting center mass.
The bullet hit bones in his chest and had massive expansion. It was determined either bullet would have killed him.
My takeaway is to get to cover if possible, accuracy is more important than fire power or more rounds.
IMO standing in the open trading rounds it is hard to be accurate.
I don’t think they were aiming, I think they were just pointing in the direction of each other and firing as many times as possible.
Now I read police reports of officers emptying their mags and hitting maybe once.
With such uncontrolled fire, I worry about the innocent bystanders.
It slanted towards 45, but I came to a conclusion unrelated to their premise.
A 22 year old bad guy wearing a heavy coat with a 9mm semi auto pistol with hollow points.
A 23 year old officer with 14 months experience with a 357 with hollow points.
A 38 year old officer with 16 years experience with a 38 special with lead bullets
The 22 year old and the 23 year old started shooting without cover.
The 22 year old shot 9 times hitting the 23 year old once in the shoulder.
Because the bullet hit bone the hollow expanded and caused massive damage to his shoulder.
The 23 year old hit the 22 year old twice firing 6 shots, but because of the heavy coat and not hitting bone the hollow point had no expansion.
The 38 year old took cover and from kneeling position fired twice hitting center mass.
The bullet hit bones in his chest and had massive expansion. It was determined either bullet would have killed him.
My takeaway is to get to cover if possible, accuracy is more important than fire power or more rounds.
IMO standing in the open trading rounds it is hard to be accurate.
I don’t think they were aiming, I think they were just pointing in the direction of each other and firing as many times as possible.
Now I read police reports of officers emptying their mags and hitting maybe once.
With such uncontrolled fire, I worry about the innocent bystanders.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Actually, this is standard advice and is part of any basic training from the NRA to the NSSF. But the OP did such a poor job of describing it that it was misconstrued.
"Figure out the purpose" doesn't mean "expel chunks of lead at high velocity." It mean, "do you intend to use it for home defense, concealed carry, open carry, sport shooting, 3 gun, small game hunting, large game hunting, long range shooting, bullseye target shooting, etc.?"
A handgun intended for big game hunting is going to be very different from one intended for rimfire bullseye competition. And they're both going to be different from a rifle intended for Long Range Bench Rest shooting.
I am equally perplexed at what the OP was trying to accomplish.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
lklawson
Grandmaster
That would be before the 1986 Miami Dade shootout and precedes a lot of advances in ammunition technology. Almost nothing that it would tell you about the performance of "hollow point" bullets is accurate any longer. It's a little like comparing a 1986 Ford Mustang to a modern Mustang. The new ones have better performance, better torque, better acceleration, better fuel efficiency, better handling, and better passenger safety mechanisms. The technology has improved and I certainly wouldn't use an article comparing 1986 cars when choosing a 2021 model car.
With most common handgun cartridges that is still true.
Quite the opposite. The best accuracy is had when standing still and focusing on the front sight. If the other guy is doing the same, you're both likely to be eating rounds. OTOH, moving while shooting makes being accurate much more difficult but also makes it much more difficult for the other guy to hit you.
That is almost always true of untrained or poorly trained shooters.
What reports? The reports I see indicate that accuracy and "hit rate" has been improving among LEO. What little information is available strongly implies that armed civilian non-LEO (i.e.: "Concealed Carry Licenses") have an even higher hit rate. LAPD seems to be among the most "accurate" of LEO agencies with a current hit rate of between 48% and 54% depending on which year you're looking at. And that's been improving. NYC seems to have the worst track record among big city agencies with a low point of only around 35% hit rate in 2006 (ims), but they've improved that over time and I think are closing in on the LAPD hit rate. For non-LEO civilian hit rates, the data is much harder to come by but it looks like the hit rate may be anywhere from 60% and up.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
Yes. Glocks are exceptionally reliable. When introduced to market, they were much more reliable, out of the box, then when compared to a stock 1911 right out of the box. Most of the old 1911 shooters tell me that the first thing they'd do to a brand new 1911 is take it to a smith to fix so it'd be reliable or buy a bunch of parts and try do to the job themselves. Didn't have to do that with the Glocks. I still remember when they were being introduced. The "blued steel" crowd called them "Tupperware Guns." Some still do.
Glocks are ugly but they work reliably with almost any brand ammunition you choose and even when they aren't well maintained or cared for particularly well.
When Glock was introduced to the U.S. market in 1988 (my first year of college), even then the G17 would reliably function with pretty much any 9mm ammo. Couldn't say that of a right-out-of-the-box 1911, and especially if that was a 9mm chambered 1911.
That said, pretty much any handgun manufactured in the last 10 years is likely going to be pretty reliable. The design and manufacturing technology has dramatically improved. Almost nothing needs to be "tuned" to be a reliable gun and a decent shooter.
So, yeah, I think cops carrying Glocks is, if not a good think, at least isn't a bad thing.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Bruce7
Black Belt
I agree with most of what you are saying. Make good points.
In the Breonna Taylor shooting all 3 officers emptied their mags.
They shot the man with the gun once in the leg.
Shot unarmed women eight times and missed over 20 times.
I do not call that good control.
One hit over 30 shots. I do not believe the shots in the women should be counted as hits.
That's not surprising. First thing that happens in a situation like this is a massive adrenaline dump. And with that, your fine motor control goes out the window. Across the board, police, military, whatever, 3 out of 4 shots will miss completely. And it takes, on average, 3 hits to kill the target. Pinpoint accuracy in a gunfight is a myth.
Bruce7
Black Belt
Good point. IMO when you are shot at most people just point and just keep pulling the trigger.
Only when the other man is not shooting is the person aiming, like in an ambush for example.
Pretty much. I don't think most people will just empty a mag non-stop, but even if they're trying to aim, without fine muscle control it's more of an 'over thataway' thing.
lklawson
Grandmaster
I don't think that's right. The police were carrying .40S&W cal weapons. The official authorized duty weapons in .40S&W for their department is Glock 22, 23, and 35, at respective magazine capacities of 15+1, 13+1, and 15+1. There were 32 rounds fired by police, 6 from Mattingly, 10 from Hankison, and 16 from Cosgrove, in two "flurries" of fire, separated by over a minute. So, while it's likely that Cosgrove did a mag dump, it doesn't look like Mattingly or Hankison did.
While there's a lot that still seems "not right" about this event, much of what seems to have been reported at first is either inaccurate or applied out of context, including the mag dump reporting.
That specific example aside, I agree that it is common for untrained or poorly trained people in adrenal dump to mag dump.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Last edited:
lklawson
Grandmaster
I agree but with caveats. We've found that the more training and practice a person has, the greater their hit rate and control. There have been a few recent events with high degrees of control and very high hit rates.
The reason that people panic under stress and mag dump, the reason that people under stress can't hit shiz, is the same reason why people who get into a fight, tie up, and drag to the ground then go spastic monkey, flailing like an electrocuted badger in a washing machine: They don't actually have training and have never "stress tested" what little skills they have. Yes, this also applies to many cops who often have little time, money for, and often interest in firearms training and equally often only (barely) make the qualifier when required (annually, bi-annually, whatever).
People are inaccurate and mag dump because they aren't trained and aren't training with stress. ...just like when you punch the white belt in the nose for the first time.
And it only gets worse when you add in movement.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Oni_Kadaki
Green Belt
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 107
On the point of combat accuracy and firing under stress, it is correct that many cops will not be able to hit their target consistently under stress because, frankly, at many academies, firearms training is just a small part of the many things a cop needs to know, and so they only get a few weeks to learn everything from fundamentals of safety and marksmanship to combat tactics. The same applies to many career fields in the military, especially support jobs where combat training is an afterthought.
However, the idea that NOBODY is capable of control and precision in combat is just wrong... I promise you, most special tactics guys are going to be VERY proficient with their weapons. Now, I will caveat that by saying that sometimes precision must sacrificed for speed... Anyone who has competed in USPSA knows that sometimes you just don't have time to line up the perfect shot, and the same certainly applies in combat. Still, that doesn't mean that shooting accurately under stress is impossible.
However, the idea that NOBODY is capable of control and precision in combat is just wrong... I promise you, most special tactics guys are going to be VERY proficient with their weapons. Now, I will caveat that by saying that sometimes precision must sacrificed for speed... Anyone who has competed in USPSA knows that sometimes you just don't have time to line up the perfect shot, and the same certainly applies in combat. Still, that doesn't mean that shooting accurately under stress is impossible.
Bruce7
Black Belt
Thanks for correction, but still that 32 rounds one hit in the leg.
Oni_Kadaki
Green Belt
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 107
That's why I am strongly against the current movement to defund the police... the average (i.e. not SWAT) cop already doesn't have enough firearms/combat training unless they hit the dojo and range on their own time. Cutting the budget is just going to make the situation worse, and make tragedies like this one more likely.
lklawson
Grandmaster
With one idiot shooting blindly through a wall, apparently.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Statistically, the NYPD cops miss what they're aiming at somewhere between 80% and 90% of the time (closer to 80% when they're not being fired upon). The 2006 study that @lklawson mentions has been updated a few times, and as I recall, training didn't seem to be making much of a difference.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that they're getting more accurate, and am interested in seeing the LAPD study mentioned.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
PolitiFact - Do more than 7 in 10 police bullets miss their mark, as this gun control advocate said?
Is this what you're referring to, @lklawson ?
Is this what you're referring to, @lklawson ?
lklawson
Grandmaster
No. But it might reference one of the studies.
