Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan
To put it simply, I don't subscribe to the "one-size-fits-all" mentality that there is an objective best selection which not only offers the best performance, but also functions equally as well in the hands of everyone, ergo choosing "the best suited for what is most probable" is determined through individual distinction, and while I may not have said this aloud in my opening post, obviously effectiveness is a factor.
Furthermore, I have watched people who go so far in their search for the ideal self-defense weapon that they end up obsessed to point that they're throwing money away by constantly experimenting with new firearms/ammo, and in some cases even becoming paranoid because they've spent so long looking for that which is the best that they ultimately question the effectiveness of everything, then turning to something new because, "What if what I've got isn't enough?"
Say what you will, but I'd rather stick with what works than spend an excessive amount of time, effort, and money in search of "the best" combination when the likelihood of me ever even having to use my firearms in self-defense isn't even all that high, and if it were that high and I had the necessary time, money, and energy to experiment until I find the best combination, then I'd sooner invest it all in moving somewhere with a lower crime rate.
Is my choice of the Walther PPK/S in .380 ACP the best choice based on that which is most probable? I honestly don't know, but I am familiar enough with it to know that it will most certainly get the job done should I need it, and that's good enough for me.
It's an imperfect world we live in with a vast number of probabilities within any scenario, too many in my opinion to consider, much less hope to come to an ideal conclusion on any given matter of importance so vital that they can make the difference between life and death, ergo I'll settle for that which is adequate over that which is the best.
|
How do your guns work for you? Are you routinely getting into deadly force encounters? Are you using a simmunition version of it in Force-on-force training and ECQ scenario drills?
One size might not fit all, but it oftens fits most. You can walk into any reputable BJJ gym and every single one of the brown and black belts can fight and will usually do very well in a street encounter, no matter their age or gender. Most will even prove it to you should you feel it necessary to test them. You can't say the same about most martial arts since the techniques and training methods just simply are not as effective. Prior to MMA, there was great diversity in the martial arts with there being relatively equal validity given to the various styles and systems, but that is really no longer the case. I can remember numerous LEO's flocking to Aikido schools when Steven Seagal was big at the box office, but we know better now. Not that aikido has absolutely nothing to offer, just that there are much more effective systems for real-world self-defense if that is your goal. There are some extremely talented martial artists who can pretty much make nearly any system work fairly well, but they would be the exception. Just as there are many talented individuals who can handle a semi-auto in an entanglement with great efficiency, but they again are the exception.
Just go on YouTube and watch a few of Craig "Southnarc" Douglas' ECQC vids and you'll see very frequent malfunctions with the Glock sim guns. A lots of folks who have gone through that coursework switch to a snub revolver afterwards for carry due to its effectiveness in that environment. The rise of MMA as a proving ground was a transitional period in martial arts that advanced understanding and provided evidence of what worked and what did not. A lot was simply rediscovering long forgotten lessons from more violent periods in our history. The same is not likely to happen in armed defense since it is much more difficult to test what's effective for obvious reasons, but we do have fairly accurate simulations in force-on-force training as well as immediate access to statistics and video of countles actual scenarios. Still, most people in the world don't carry a gun on a daily basis so a certain amount theory will be required in many instances.
Based on available statistics as well as common sense, the most likely scenario in which I would need to defend myself using a firearm will be at contact distances out to a few yards. In an extreme close-quarter scenario, the enclosed hammer revolver is simply more efficient. That's pretty much the case with everyone with perhaps very rare exceptions.
You could argue that everyone is in different circumstances, but where is the proof? Where in this country are people at high risk of getting into a ranged gunfight at all, let alone with multiple armed assailants? In contrast, the chance of contact distance or very close-quarter violence is relatively high and most of us will experience it some point in our lives.