If a person cannot operate a machine as it was designed, the best advise is to stay away from that machine.
The highlighted caveat goes to the heart of what I'm saying. The Glock's design could be better (and safer) in this regard.
If a person cannot operate a machine as it was designed, the best advise is to stay away from that machine.
I get very tired of hearing folks say the revolver is outdated and people having them are out gunned.
Maybe they are if the shooter plans on prolonged gun battles out in the open, they are very bad shots or have a lot of assailants.
It only takes a single shot from a proper caliber to stop an aggression. The gangbangers use the auto loaders because they miss often.
A revolver is more accurate and reliable than an auto loader. They do not jamb, they do not require a safety and they are simpler to operate.
Young people tend to own auto loaders because they have been indoctrinated by Hollywood movies. Look at what Hollywood has done for revolvers in years past. Remember Dirty Harry? Hollywood makes an impression on the attitudes of people and do so deliberately.
The high capacity guns taught people to depend more on capacity and less on accuracy.
You want to see what a revolver can do? Look at Jerry Miculet. He is past being great. How many of us need to fire as he does? Yet his revolver suits his needs and if we practiced, it would suit any of our needs. Yet we want capacity because we PLAN on missing. You can say what you want but nobody needs a box of ammo while walking the streets, be they police or citizen. We see it daily. An officer with 14 rounds in his auto loader and two 14 round mags on his belt. I see young people in this area (open carry state) wearing an auto loader and having three magazines on their side. People plan on missing.
I have been involved in three shootings since 1968. None of them required more than two shots. Each was with a revolver.
I did not plan on being involved in such but I did plan on hitting my target should I be involved in any shooting. We lost our concern for accuracy. That is also why police departments are often sued by victims of errant police fired rounds. A police shooting in this area about five yrs ago resulted in officers shooting a house, two cars and hitting the perp once in the leg. We get a subconcious mindset that we will miss a few shots so we cannot be using a revolver.
Nor do I plan on staying around if a shooting is going to be a drawn out event. I will go home and let someone call me when it is over. The more rounds fired means the more likely I am to be hit.
The revolver did not out live it's usefulness. The people became more interested in missing a lot.
Another thing: How many times have you seen a thread about a revolver not loading properly, not having the slide function as it should or magazine problems? Revolvers are pretty much trouble free.
Ok, that said, as most know, I carry a 1911 but only due to the size round. I also have a few .357 revolvers and would feel totally comfortable in being able to accurately use any of them and feel even more confident in their ability to perform flawlessly.
You may have field stripped it but you didn't do it the way you wrote when you said "ah lock the slide, pull down on the takedown leavers, pull down on the slide lock and pull the trigger,"but I did just that on the 17L a moment ago and it worked fine, granted its one of the first ones from 88' but I dont think they've changed it any way have they?
actually I seem to remember trying the one they say your supposed to do and I couldnt get the damn thing appart.
While true there's more to the story. When the ISP went to the 9s the training regiment also changed. People point to going to the 9 and increased hits as being the reason. One also has to look at the training end which probably had more to do with increased hits than just changing the platform.For what it is worth when the ISP used single stack S&W 9mms the hit percentages were the highest in years.
With all due respect to the previous posters...The Sigma killed S&Ws hold on the LEO market & here is how it happened...
Glock perfected their polymer framed semi-auto handguns and started marketing them to the LEO market.
Im not law enforcement, but I gather the idea that investing the money to train police who can shoot that accurately simply isn't a goal for the money minded higher ups, if it is even achievable. The 1986 FBI shootout illustrated that when two perps with more range time than the good guys shot it out , the good guys hit the scumbags 4 times each out of 70 rounds fired between all of them.
While I agree with most of your posting, I disagree with the training issue.
It takes the same amount of money to train a person to shoot accurately. It takes more money to teach the problem resolutions that take place with an auto loader. Revolvers are much simpler to teach how to shoot. Less time explaining means less expense. Less moving parts means fewer repairs and better hits. It also means less time on the range and fewer shots being required.
Depts now are buying more ammo per officer than they did when revolvers were used.
Also, there are more shots fired in the streets now than when revolvers were in use. More shots means more money and more liability risks.
Then we have officers. Most, not all, are not gun people. They were not active shooters prior to being hired and they only look at their sidearm as being a tool of the profession. They shoot only when qualifying and handle their firearm seldom.
I disagree. Glock BOUGHT the LEA market...
The step prior to taking it down where you have to pull the trigger is what I am referring to. This is where many accidental discharges have occurred. Sure, the gun should've been cleared, but it's just poor from a procedural standpoint that a gun need be "dry fired" to be field stripped.
The step prior to taking it down where you have to pull the trigger is what I am referring to. This is where many accidental discharges have occurred. Sure, the gun should've been cleared, but it's just poor from a procedural standpoint that a gun need be "dry fired" to be field stripped.
[
When I was a lowly infantryman, we referred to this as a negligent discharge, not accidental. A weapon of any kind is only as safe as it's operator (or deadly, for that matter).
Currently for the US Army, dry firing is a requirment for clearing a weapon, which immediately preceeds field stripping. If you can't figure out how to unload a weapon safely before clearing and field stripping, you've got no business being behind the trigger or for that matter, carrying one in public. Training is the key, practicing is non-negotiable.