what I learned in MI CPL class (USCCA)

[Runs With Fire]

A couple things.
First: I learned that my Remington R51 isn't trusted by many gun experts.

Second, I learned that the m&p shield is more popular than I realized( four of twelve participants had identical shields)

I, familiar as I am with firearms but lacking any formal training, learned a lot about grip and pistol control.

My wife has little experience with firearms, especially my R51. The two didn't jive. I never thought much about it but nearly all her shooting experience (2,000-3,000 rnds plinking) was with a single action .22 revolver. Aside from not knowing how to control recoil during drills, she had a failure to feed do to not fully seating the magazine. She also had an issue with the grip safety. She wouldn't completely depress it and a failure to fire resulted. Then continue to fumble with clearing the action until an instructor stepped in. Happened a few times They let her know she was probably not fully engaging the safety.
I kinda blew that one, sorry Honey.

I had a dud round but no other trouble with the R51. I did realize that I dislike the grip safety after my wife's dismal familiarity. I have had trouble with it a time or two myself. Got me thinking, how many times have I drawn a bead on rabbits or ducks only to pull the trigger three or four times before realizing I forgot to hit the safety? I see an external safetey-less compact handgun in the near future.

 

[wab25]

she had a failure to feed do to not fully seating the magazine. She also had an issue with the grip safety. She wouldn't completely depress it and a failure to fire resulted. Then continue to fumble with clearing the action until an instructor stepped in. Happened a few times They let her know she was probably not fully engaging the safety.
I kinda blew that one, sorry Honey.

I had a dud round but no other trouble with the R51. I did realize that I dislike the grip safety after my wife's dismal familiarity. I have had trouble with it a time or two myself. Got me thinking, how many times have I drawn a bead on rabbits or ducks only to pull the trigger three or four times before realizing I forgot to hit the safety? I see an external safetey-less compact handgun in the near future.

Sounds like a great advertisement for double action revolver...

 

[Runs With Fire]

Sounds like a great advertisement for double action revolver...

Perhaps, I do like all the pros to a double action revolver. Though looking at the capacity of the 9mm compact Ruger American at 17+1 vs 5 or 6 +0 it's a piont of conflict.

 

[Runs With Fire]

Then again, a double stack isn't really something my wife fits all that well. I like my glock 20. She might try out a few more revolvers the next time we go to the fancy range.

 

[Runs With Fire]

Btw, although the grip safety throws me for a loop at times just because it's so different, the R51 is the most accurate pistol I have shot to date.
*note that I have not shot any specialty marksmanship type pistols or any pistol marketed as a competitive marksmanship pistol

 

[CB Jones]

Not a big fan of revolvers. Matter of fact...I hate revolvers for self defense purposes.

For CC its hard to beat Glock.

A Glock 19 or Glock 23 they are just good all around guns. I worked undercover carrying a Glock 23 IWB for years. Loved it.

Also the Glock 43 is great small concealable 9mm.

 

[Runs With Fire]

I agree completely.

Not a big fan of revolvers. Matter of fact...I hate revolvers for self defense purposes.

For CC its hard to beat Glock.

A Glock 19 or Glock 23 they are just good all around guns. I worked undercover carrying a Glock 23 IWB for years. Loved it.

Also the Glock 43 is great small concealable 9mm.

 

[wab25]

I hate revolvers for self defense purposes.

Just curious... what specifically do you not like about revolvers for self defense?

 

[CB Jones]

Just curious... what specifically do you not like about revolvers for self defense?

If you like or enjoy shooting revolvers was that’s fine.

What I cringe at is when people suggest revolvers for solely self defense.

Semi-Automatics are just better for self defense. Choosing a revolver over a semi auto for solely self defense puts you at a disadvantage.

 

[Runs With Fire]

Capacity

Just curious... what specifically do you not like about revolvers for self defense?

 

[wab25]

What I cringe at is when people suggest revolvers for solely self defense.

Semi-Automatics are just better for self defense. Choosing a revolver over a semi auto for solely self defense puts you at a disadvantage.

Why? What are the specific disadvantages you are referring to?

Capacity

This is a disadvantage, sort of... Depending on which study you read most defensive gun uses do not involve shooting at all. Most studies put that number well above 50% some near 90% of the defensive gun uses never involve firing the gun. With practice, and a speed loader, you can reload your revolver fairly quickly. It should take less time than it takes to clear a misfire from an automatic... except you know when it will happen. If you are really in a situation where you need to fire all 18 rounds as fast as your finger can go, I don't think you will make it to 18... (I know I won't, unless they are worse shots than me, in which case I can reload.)

The advantage I see is reliability. There are fewer things to fail. The grip safety won't fail, the trigger safety won't fail, my thumb won't slip and put the safety on, it doesn't matter if I limp wrist a shot, it won't fail to feed the next round, it won't jam, I don't need to worry if I forgot to clean and lube it right, if I have a bad round of ammo I just pull the thingy again.

 

[CB Jones]

Why? What are the specific disadvantages you are referring to?

Auto loaders:

Higher capacity
Lower recoil with better ballistics
Faster reloads with higher capacity mags
Conceal better inside and outside of waistband
Allows more rounds on target at a faster pace
autos now are just as accurate as revolvers
autos are now just as reliable as revolvers

All in all in a gunfight the person with an autoloader has an advantage over the revolver

 

[Runs With Fire]

Why? What are the specific disadvantages you are referring to?

This is a disadvantage, sort of... Depending on which study you read most defensive gun uses do not involve shooting at all. Most studies put that number well above 50% some near 90% of the defensive gun uses never involve firing the gun. With practice, and a speed loader, you can reload your revolver fairly quickly. It should take less time than it takes to clear a misfire from an automatic... except you know when it will happen. If you are really in a situation where you need to fire all 18 rounds as fast as your finger can go, I don't think you will make it to 18... (I know I won't, unless they are worse shots than me, in which case I can reload.)

The advantage I see is reliability. There are fewer things to fail. The grip safety won't fail, the trigger safety won't fail, my thumb won't slip and put the safety on, it doesn't matter if I limp wrist a shot, it won't fail to feed the next round, it won't jam, I don't need to worry if I forgot to clean and lube it right, if I have a bad round of ammo I just pull the thingy again.

My purpose of carrying a pistol is to kill things. It might be chipmunks, bears, deer, and people. A revolver works fine in the woods of southern Michigan. When I hunt up north in bear country, I prefer fifteen 10mm rounds in my glock 20. In close quarters, more rounds equates to a better tool for killing quickly. When my life is on the line, the minimum doesn't cut it. Simple math, 15>6. Edit: Jones types faster than me

 

[Runs With Fire]

It's the same reason a bolt action rifle doesn't fit as a standard battle rifle these days. They are still just as deadly as they were, but the battlefield got more deadly.

 

[wab25]

Auto loaders:

Higher capacity
Lower recoil with better ballistics
Faster reloads with higher capacity mags
Conceal better inside and outside of waistband
Allows more rounds on target at a faster pace
autos now are just as accurate as revolvers
autos are now just as reliable as revolvers

All in all in a gunfight the person with an autoloader has an advantage over the revolver

I appreciate the reply and specifics.

 

[CB Jones]

I appreciate the reply and specifics.

In the end....it’s the carriers choice to make....just in my opinion the autoloader is a better gun for gun fighting.

 

[wab25]

It's the same reason a bolt action rifle doesn't fit as a standard battle rifle these days. They are still just as deadly as they were, but the battlefield got more deadly.

This might be where we differ. In a self defense, civilian usage... my goal is not to kill people, nor win a battlefield. My goal is to defend myself and family. If the goal were to kill people and or win a battlefield then I agree a lot with what CB is saying.

Here is one study done of 482 civilian shootings: The Thinking Gunfighter: Self Defense Findings

Some interesting conclusions:

• The average and median number of shots fired was 2.
• Reloading was required in only 3 of 482 incidents.
  
• there are no apparent cases of drivers or lookouts acting as reinforcements for the criminal actor(s) once shooting starts. Immediate flight is the most common response for drivers and lookouts at the sound of gunfire.

It is a rare event when a civilian needs to use a gun to defend himself. Most of the time, simply showing the gun is enough. So the times that I as a civilian would need to shoot, is very rare. In that event, the average number of shots fired is 2. (I have read other reports and seen other averages 2, 3, and 5 are common depending on which study you look at) The most common reaction by the bad guy, in all the studies I am aware of is flight.

My reality, is that I don't get to the range to practice as often as I would like. I don't get to maintain my gun as often as I would like. (I might not even have cleaned it yet after the last time I took it shooting.) What I need is something I can get to, and get of 2 to 5 shots. Given that as a civilian, I don't get all the practice I want/need, if I am in a situation where they don't run, but open fire... I expect that will happen before I get to shots 6 and 7.

One study showed it takes 5 shots to get a hit. (I am going with the high count for this exercise...) Suppose there are 3 armed bad guys. This means that the minimum number of rounds that I need is 15, to take down all 3, if they don't run. So, it takes 5 rounds on the first guy... that means his two buddies fired 5 times at me, plus the guy I am shooting at most likely got off a few more at me. So, statistically, I am already shot twice by the time I shoot the first guy once. I now need another 5 shots to hit the second guy... but that means the third guy has 5 more shots on me... and a third hit on me. The point here is, as an average citizen, even if I need 15 rounds, I probably don't really have the training and skill to get them all out and on the multiple targets anyway.

However, thats ok. Most of the time, showing the gun is enough. If I have to fire the gun, 2 shots will handle most of the other cases. The cases where I would need to reload are very rare. From the report above: "Incidents rarely occurred in reaction time (i.e., ¼ second increments)." I should have the time to reload.

As a civilian, I feel I need a gun that will work absolutely every time I pull the trigger, regardless of how well maintained it is at the time. I feel I need something simple to operate, the simpler the better. By the time I get to shots 5 or 6, the bad guys are running or I am about done anyway.

To your point, killing people or winning battles is a different thing. If that is the goal, then my choice of tool would be different. (I think the snipers still use bolt action rifles on the battlefield... but I could be wrong here)

 

[Runs With Fire]

This might be where we differ. In a self defense, civilian usage... my goal is not to kill people, nor win a battlefield. My goal is to defend myself and family. If the goal were to kill people and or win a battlefield then I agree a lot with what CB is saying.

Here is one study done of 482 civilian shootings: The Thinking Gunfighter: Self Defense Findings

Some interesting conclusions:

• The average and median number of shots fired was 2.
• Reloading was required in only 3 of 482 incidents.
  
• there are no apparent cases of drivers or lookouts acting as reinforcements for the criminal actor(s) once shooting starts. Immediate flight is the most common response for drivers and lookouts at the sound of gunfire.

It is a rare event when a civilian needs to use a gun to defend himself. Most of the time, simply showing the gun is enough. So the times that I as a civilian would need to shoot, is very rare. In that event, the average number of shots fired is 2. (I have read other reports and seen other averages 2, 3, and 5 are common depending on which study you look at) The most common reaction by the bad guy, in all the studies I am aware of is flight.

My reality, is that I don't get to the range to practice as often as I would like. I don't get to maintain my gun as often as I would like. (I might not even have cleaned it yet after the last time I took it shooting.) What I need is something I can get to, and get of 2 to 5 shots. Given that as a civilian, I don't get all the practice I want/need, if I am in a situation where they don't run, but open fire... I expect that will happen before I get to shots 6 and 7.

One study showed it takes 5 shots to get a hit. (I am going with the high count for this exercise...) Suppose there are 3 armed bad guys. This means that the minimum number of rounds that I need is 15, to take down all 3, if they don't run. So, it takes 5 rounds on the first guy... that means his two buddies fired 5 times at me, plus the guy I am shooting at most likely got off a few more at me. So, statistically, I am already shot twice by the time I shoot the first guy once. I now need another 5 shots to hit the second guy... but that means the third guy has 5 more shots on me... and a third hit on me. The point here is, as an average citizen, even if I need 15 rounds, I probably don't really have the training and skill to get them all out and on the multiple targets anyway.

However, thats ok. Most of the time, showing the gun is enough. If I have to fire the gun, 2 shots will handle most of the other cases. The cases where I would need to reload are very rare. From the report above: "Incidents rarely occurred in reaction time (i.e., ¼ second increments)." I should have the time to reload.

As a civilian, I feel I need a gun that will work absolutely every time I pull the trigger, regardless of how well maintained it is at the time. I feel I need something simple to operate, the simpler the better. By the time I get to shots 5 or 6, the bad guys are running or I am about done anyway.

To your point, killing people or winning battles is a different thing. If that is the goal, then my choice of tool would be different. (I think the snipers still use bolt action rifles on the battlefield... but I could be wrong here)

If for no other point, less time reloading at the range, more time shooting ( quite significant when shooting 500 rnds). Now, about military snipers, I think the m24 is a bolt action .308. The m2010 is a bolt action. .300 mag. And the m107 is semi auto( all of a loose memory). My Ruger American .308 bolt action with a Vortex Viper is my favorite firearm and my primary for shtf, backed up by my glock 20. I love the accuracy and it would be my go to in a shootout in a minimum 100 yards. Mabey closer to 200

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I did realize that I dislike the grip safety after my wife's dismal familiarity.

I have always seen issues like this as a good reason to have a grip safety. I've never had a single issue using one (a firm, deep grip seems to always work), but I've seen others have a problem. That decreases the chance (even if only slightly) of it being used against me. My dad had a gun stolen and the thief tried to use it against him. It had a grip-cocking mechanism, and the thief didn't grip hard enough (again, not a problem I ever had with that gun) leading to a FTF. Probably saved my dad's life.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Capacity

That depends what you compare to. A officer-size 1911, IRCC, only carries 6 in the mag. There are a number of small pistols that don't carry more. Granted a difference of 1 is a significant % here, but not a big number. To me, a snubnose 38 without an exposed hammer is not worse than a .380 with 6 rounds.

Of course, if we compare to a double-stack or full-size (even single-stack 1911), that's another matter, but the small pistols don't compare well, either.