Reliability and performance expectations for a personal defense firearm...

2

Replies

  • EliEli Senior Member Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Another thought from a different direction - When it's all said and done, I guess I'm really more interested in how the firearm functions when it's been rode hard and neglected than how it functions when it's been "meticulously" maintained. I mean, if I can depend on that sucker when it's coated in dust and has a gob of cow crap hanging on the rear sight - I've got no worries at all when it's clean.....

    I'm not advocating not cleaning your sidearm, but if the best you can do at the moment is slosh it around in a stock tank, blow it off with an air compressor then wipe it off with a greasy rag......Well...I still want it to work until I can tend to it properly.

    :that:

    Which is what I assume when I hear "it runs flawlessly". If you don't know what it takes to stop your gun, then you honestly can't say that your gun is reliable without and asterisk of "when spotless."
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Another thought from a different direction - When it's all said and done, I guess I'm really more interested in how the firearm functions when it's been rode hard and neglected than how it functions when it's been "meticulously" maintained. I mean, if I can depend on that sucker when it's coated in dust and has a gob of cow crap hanging on the rear sight - I've got no worries at all when it's clean.....

    I'm not advocating not cleaning your sidearm, but if the best you can do at the moment is slosh it around in a stock tank, blow it off with an air compressor then wipe it off with a greasy rag......Well...I still want it to work until I can tend to it properly.
    Depends on your environment, I think. If you're an office worker who conceal carries, the chances of it getting dirty and nasty are much lower than say... you having it get dirty and nasty. While being able to run like that is nice, realistically it might not be necessary, in my opinion.

    My firearms occasionally get rained on when I'm out walking with them and get caught in a good rain. So I've run them somewhat dry for 3 mags full just to make sure they'd work then. They do...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Depends on your environment, I think. If you're an office worker who conceal carries, the chances of it getting dirty and nasty are much lower than say... you having it get dirty and nasty. While being able to run like that is nice, realistically it might not be necessary, in my opinion.

    My firearms occasionally get rained on when I'm out walking with them and get caught in a good rain. So I've run them somewhat dry for 3 mags full just to make sure they'd work then. They do...

    Pretty much the same here. I don't think I'm gonna be around a stock tank anytime soon.

    Still, for those who do go mud wrasslin' while carrying, it makes sense that the weapon work okay when dirty.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,041 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Oodles and oodles, to use a technical term. Equivalent to 4.305 "Sagans" (per Carl Sagan's "millions and billions")

    I'm pretty sure a single Sagan-unit is four billion. If we take Carl Sagans original quote "Billions upon billions". . . "Billions" implies at least two billion, so "billions upon billions" implies at least four billion. Twelve billion would therefore be three sagans. I'm pretty sure that even this crowd would collectively have trouble finding spaces for 4 sagan .45ACP rounds.:jester:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure a single Sagan-unit is four billion. If we take Carl Sagans original quote "Billions upon billions". . . "Billions" implies at least two billion, so "billions upon billions" implies at least four billion. Twelve billion would therefore be three sagans. I'm pretty sure that even this crowd would collectively have trouble finding spaces for 4 sagan .45ACP rounds.:jester:

    Good analysis. I think I was just fudgin' my round count a bit. But it is in fact quite true that I've never had a single jam or misfeed from either of those pistols, my XD Tactical and my Operator 1911.

    I'm sure that if I went out to the hog pens and rolled the guns around in them a while, maybe I'd get some misfeeds. Or dragged them behind my pickup truck for miles through my back forty cow pasture. Or if I designed and loaded my own special ammo because I don't trust firms like, oh, Remington or Winchester or CorBon.

    Oh, wait! I don't HAVE a hog pen or cow pasture! What the heck was I thinking?

    Just pokin' a bit of fun at you tough-tester guys. But there's essentially zero purpose in intentionally gumming up a pistol or using cruddy lube on it just to see if it will fail. Of COURSE a pistol will fail if you keep throwing dirt into it. And that's a good showpiece for a gun mag or website that wants to "torture test" the weapons.

    That's akin to your running your car or truck into a tree or a lake just to see how it malfunctions. Kind of wasteful. Likewise my firearms. They're kept clean and lubed. And unless we're headed for the annual zombie apocalypse (it's been postponed for several years, like global warming), I really cannot think of any reason to get the guns dirty just to see if they jam, or feed them irregular ammo for the same purpose.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,055 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I really cannot think of any reason to get the guns dirty just to see if they jam, or feed them irregular ammo for the same purpose.

    Well Sam, what we have here is the difference between "having" a gun and actually "using " a gun. Because of your lifestyle you can pamper your fireams and maintain them in a "meticulous" condition...you "have" guns. On the other side of the coin, whether I'm sorting cattle, birthing calves, shoveling crap, fixing fence, or mowing pastures...my sidearms are exposed to the same things I am...so you can bet that if I need to be flushed off with a hose before my wife will let me in the house, my sidearm is in pretty nasty shape as well. No matter how dirty they get, I need to know they are going to work when I need them. They may start off clean and well lubricated, however, over the course of the day, they aren't going to stay that way long...I "use" my guns

    Think about all those firearms that went to war...you don't think they torture tested the heck out of the design before they were issued?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Yes, those firearms for military were indeed tested and checked for adverse conditions.

    I don't "use" my guns much, having gone a long while since I actually pointed a gun at anybody, so I guess it's more like "having" for me.

    I understand someone who's involved in farming or ranching but that's not my life. My route was science and technology and so the bulk of my life has been in labs and research centers, computer facilities, etc. I do admit to "meticulous" care for my firearms, but I really can see ZERO need to "rough-test" them since they won't be exposed to much dirt or mud ever. You have another lifestyle. I don't. So I don't really CARE if my pistols work after being in a stock tank. Why should I? My pistols are gonna be "used" and not "owned" if I ever have to present and maybe fire in self defense. They're not hunting weapons nor are they gonna be dragged around in mud. I don't know what the "used vs owned" thing is anyway. How many times do you "use" your firearms -- actual shoot them -- during your regular day? I'd guess about the same as do I "use" mine -- hopefully none.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,467 Senior Member
    He certainly doesn't need me to speak for him, but I'd wager Jayhawker is more likely to encounter dangerous critters on a daily basis than you or I.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • EliEli Senior Member Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    The difference is that saying "this gun works", is such a subjective phrase.

    Sort of like the difference between saying a 458 Italia runs, and saying a Camry runs.

    The Ferrari will run.....*IF it's loaded with premium fuel, hasn't been driven over 500 miles since it's last tune up, and has been meticulously maintained during those <500 miles* (hence the asterisk.)

    The Toyota just plain runs.

    For the most part, when you say "this _____ works", which audience do you think you're speaking to? An audience that assumes the asterisk, or the one that doesn't?
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    bobbyrlf3 wrote: »
    He certainly doesn't need me to speak for him, but I'd wager Jayhawker is more likely to encounter dangerous critters on a daily basis than you or I.

    He may. I only live in the center of Houston. He's got all of nature to contend with, ha ha.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,041 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    . . .Just pokin' a bit of fun at you tough-tester guys. But there's essentially zero purpose in intentionally gumming up a pistol or using cruddy lube on it just to see if it will fail. Of COURSE a pistol will fail if you keep throwing dirt into it. And that's a good showpiece for a gun mag or website that wants to "torture test" the weapons...

    There's a line here somewhere, and I can't honestly tell you where it is

    Yes, the military flat out NEEDS to test stuff to failure and/or destruction, because where the rubber meets the road, you never know where in the world it may go or who's hands it will be in when it goes there.

    For the rest of us. . .especially those of us who are semi-enthusiasts, we UNDERSTAND that these things are essentially our "parachutes", and they need to work ALL THE TIME. Sure, we don't want finicky gear, and it should put up with a reasonable amount of "real world", but anybody who lets their parachute degrade to anything even close to the point of failure DESERVES to go *SPLAT* when they pull the rip cord.

    Continuing on the subject of "Sagans". . .Back when the Marine Corps armorers were still building the "SOCOM" 1911's for the Force Recon boys with commercial parts on original GI frames, they would run them for about 100,000 rounds with minor parts replacements, strip off the commercial parts, maganflux the frame to make sure it was still crack-free, and do it again. . . repeatedly...

    So if a "Sagan unit" is four billion - and I'm doing the math right - the rebuild interval of a Marine 1911 is .000025 Sagans. Just in case you were wondering.:jester:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,055 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    How many times do you "use" your firearms -- actual shoot them -- during your regular day? I'd guess about the same as do I "use" mine -- hopefully none.

    You'd be guessing wrong....More often than you think...you're thinking about defending yourself against human threats....I contend with injured or sick critters that need to be put down, and four-legged threats to livestock and pests that need to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. Try thinking of a sidearm as a tool....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,694 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Good analysis. I think I was just fudgin' my round count a bit. But it is in fact quite true that I've never had a single jam or misfeed from either of those pistols, my XD Tactical and my Operator 1911.

    I'm sure that if I went out to the hog pens and rolled the guns around in them a while, maybe I'd get some misfeeds. Or dragged them behind my pickup truck for miles through my back forty cow pasture. Or if I designed and loaded my own special ammo because I don't trust firms like, oh, Remington or Winchester or CorBon.

    Oh, wait! I don't HAVE a hog pen or cow pasture! What the heck was I thinking?

    Just pokin' a bit of fun at you tough-tester guys. But there's essentially zero purpose in intentionally gumming up a pistol or using cruddy lube on it just to see if it will fail. Of COURSE a pistol will fail if you keep throwing dirt into it. And that's a good showpiece for a gun mag or website that wants to "torture test" the weapons.

    That's akin to your running your car or truck into a tree or a lake just to see how it malfunctions. Kind of wasteful. Likewise my firearms. They're kept clean and lubed. And unless we're headed for the annual zombie apocalypse (it's been postponed for several years, like global warming), I really cannot think of any reason to get the guns dirty just to see if they jam, or feed them irregular ammo for the same purpose.


    Sam, you're likely the only person on this forum that claims to not be concerned as to weather their personal defense firearm will function under adverse conditions. You so eloquently make jokes about pastures and hog pens but what about on those rare occasions that you venture out of your gated little compound? If you're confronted with a situation that requires you to draw your weapon do you have to take it out of a ziplock bag in your manpurse? Even a piece of pocket lint can cause some handguns to malfuntion if it gets into the right place. Most folks here understand that if a firearm will run with dirt in it, it will likely run with a piece of lint. As for running a vehicle into a tree or lake to see how it malfunctions, the automobile manufacturers do in fact subject their vehicles to collision and immersion testing to see how they malfuntion. You should get out more.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    However, it is a bit embarrassing to have the lint "poof" out of the handgun at the range for the first half-dozen rounds as the action removes the excess.

    Been there, done that.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    You'd be guessing wrong....More often than you think...you're thinking about defending yourself against human threats....I contend with injured or sick critters that need to be put down, and four-legged threats to livestock and pests that need to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. Try thinking of a sidearm as a tool....

    Totally correct. Other than target shooting and practicing self defense at the range, and of course the pleasure of just messin' around with the guns, the only real "use" these are for is armed self defense. May it never be needed.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,280 Senior Member
    So if you are out on a rainy night, some bad guy knocks you to the ground and you land in a mud puddle. You draw your gun to defend yourself, don't you want to know it will go bang? I do, that's why decent manufacturers test stuff beyond normal use needs. A car is not intended to crash but they crash test them cause they know it will happen.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    Sam, you're likely the only person on this forum that claims to not be concerned as to weather their personal defense firearm will function under adverse conditions. You so eloquently make jokes about pastures and hog pens but what about on those rare occasions that you venture out of your gated little compound? If you're confronted with a situation that requires you to draw your weapon do you have to take it out of a ziplock bag in your manpurse? Even a piece of pocket lint can cause some handguns to malfuntion if it gets into the right place. Most folks here understand that if a firearm will run with dirt in it, it will likely run with a piece of lint. As for running a vehicle into a tree or lake to see how it malfunctions, the automobile manufacturers do in fact subject their vehicles to collision and immersion testing to see how they malfuntion. You should get out more.

    Well, lemme see... First, I don't have a ziplock bag nor a manpurse. Sorry, I'm not a tweak or a twit or a hipster. I'm just a guy who lives in a big city, will never be "out on the wilds" and therefore sees no reason to sludge up my firearms to see if they function under severe conditions. I may as well arrange to test them for zero gee and vacuum conditions, in the event I'm sucked into far orbit. The firearms are not gonna be doing that either.

    You've got this oddball concept that I've got my pistols immersed in a cryo vat and some sort of suspended animation chamber. Naw. The pistols are handled and carried around and are in and out of pocket holsters (the small autos and snubbie .357) and are generally not pristine. I check them weekly however and about once a month I clear them from ammo and do a spot lube, clean out dust and lint, and otherwise ensure they're fine. And of course they get their range time, now and then.

    I understand that vehicle manufacturers do subject their products to crash tests. Are you recommending that all of us therefore crash our own cars or trucks to make sure they're gonna be okay after? Er, nope.

    I understand Jay and others who are outdoors and who are in the fields and they and their firearms are getting muddy and otherwise crudded up. And should they wish they may choose to "crud up" their firearms to ensure they'll function afterward. Keen. But I've got zero impetus to do so. My firearms aren't gonna be dragged thru mud ever. At least not while I'm owning them.

    I do get out as much as I can, by the way. But not in a mud pit, thank you.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    However, it is a bit embarrassing to have the lint "poof" out of the handgun at the range for the first half-dozen rounds as the action removes the excess.

    Been there, done that.

    Had that happen to me, too! Eeek. Now I give my guns a good dusting and wipe routinely to counter that.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Had that happen to me, too! Eeek. Now I give my guns a good dusting and wipe routinely to counter that.
    Meh. If they don't function with a little lint or dust, I don't trust them.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Hey, that Glock test Eli was performing remids me of a Shake n Bake commercial "And I Helped" the kid would say.

    Maybe those Glocks choked a little because they are striker fired whereas a "Loose" 1911 would have probably done better?????
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,845 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Hey, that Glock test Eli was performing remids me of a Shake n Bake commercial "And I Helped" the kid would say.

    Maybe those Glocks choked a little because they are striker fired whereas a "Loose" 1911 would have probably done better?????
    Well, I ain't willing to run either of my 1911s through that :nono:, but feel free to head on down and I'll provide the bag of sandy dirt, bucket lake bottom goo and tub of water for you to run YOUR 1911 through.

    I'll just stand a safe ways away and video it
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,694 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Well, I ain't willing to run either of my 1911s through that :nono:, but feel free to head on down and I'll provide the bag of sandy dirt, bucket lake bottom goo and tub of water for you to run YOUR 1911 through.

    I'll just stand a safe ways away and video it


    Ya know Paul, that's not a bad idea. I have enough 1911 parts laying around that with a cheap frame from Sarco, I could probably put together a loose GI grade workable 1911. It would be interesting to compare an old workhorse to the plastic wonderguns.
    Incidently, during marksmanship training in the military they took a 1911 and dipped it in a bucket of red clay mud and gooped it up but then dipped it in a bucket of water before they fired it. The premise was that you could just rinse it off in a puddle and keep shooting.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Know that you've just opened up the "if a round of .45 ACP won't do, then what makes you think your puny 9mm will do better" argument....

    That being said, I have no desire to get into a chambering battle. To me it's irrelevant as long as you're using 9mm/.38 Special or better. So I would feel just as comfortable with 9 rds. of 9mm as I am with .45. But you do raise an interesting point, and a good one at that.... the beauty of the higher capacity mags is not that you can shoot more, it's that you have to manipulate the firearm less for the same number of shots fired. Which I will gladly concede is a valid point. However, to me the ergonomics of the 1911 and how relatively easily I can hit with that over, say, a Glock 17 makes the 1911 a better platform for me. A close second is the Browning Hi Power, but I don't carry my Hi Power clone because I don't have the right grips for it (Pachmayrs, while grand in their own right, tend to grab clothing for me.)

    Now, if I had an XD, maybe (just maybe) and M&P or even a CZ-75, I would carry one of those and get good ergonomics aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand higher mag capacity. But I don't have any of those.

    Yet.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,220 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    More capacity for me means more ammo for when I miss. So lets assume 50% hit the target, for me 8 is better than 4.
    Shouldn't you be posting this in the hunting forum?
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Shouldn't you be posting this in the hunting forum?
    He's assuming a 50% hit rate. Not 10%...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • gaimangaiman Banned Posts: 60 Member
    when I CCW''d a 1911 variant (alloy Commander). I practiced with the gov't model. that way, I didn't have to lug around that big old clunk, and the wear and fouling of practice did not go onto my EDC.

    I went to front pants pocket carry when the true pocket 9's became available (and proven to be ok). The reason is that I found out how short the range almost always is for civilians (if you don't want to go to prison or be sued ou of every $ you ever make) and when I realized that of the several times I'd needed a gun, it had never been needed so swiftly that I wouldn't have had time to put my hand in my pocket If I sense trouble brewing, or enter a statistically risky place, I put my hand in my pocket. The ccw draw, from there, is 2x as fast as a ccw draw from a belt rig. it's 4-6x faster in bad weather, when you wear a heavy coat atop the concealing garment, and maybe wear gloves, too. that's assuming a "hand in pocket' start (and no gloves). Which is how it normally would be for me.

    Read the DOJ'S Annual Crime Survey, the Nra mag's Armed Citizen monthly column, and Cirillo's book about gunfighting, and talk to some (non cops) about their defensive confrontations and it's almost never beyond 5 yds, guys, rarely beyond 10 ft, and too often it's at arm's length. Just ask George Z about that. :-)

    I just don't see any point in lugging around a big clunk. I did it for 10 years, and frankly, it sux.
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,467 Senior Member
    gaiman wrote: »
    when I CCW''d a 1911 variant (alloy Commander). I practiced with the gov't model. that way, I didn't have to lug around that big old clunk, and the wear and fouling of practice did not go onto my EDC.


    I just don't see any point in lugging around a big clunk. I did it for 10 years, and frankly, it sux.

    How do you know the carry gun you choose will perform as you intend if you don't practice with it?
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • gaimangaiman Banned Posts: 60 Member
    you assume that I didn't fire the commander at ALL? Why assume that? Because YOU wouldn't, hmm? I fired an average of 10,000 rds per year back in those times, probably 1000 per year thru the Commander. Just the 1000 rds is more than what most people fire, and since the handling qualities of the go'vt model and commander are so similar, and because I was so good with it, I could have not practiced with the commander at ALL, and still been FAR better with it than the average cop is with his duty pistol, count on that much. I had 3 years in a row when I averaged 40,000 rds per year with the gov't model. :-) When you've shot at the world class level for several years, all you need is dryfire or airsoft to remain more skilled than the average cop (who fires at most 2000 rds per year, and often, only 500 rds or less. ) The latter often has VERY low levels of skill, so even if the top hand degrades by 50%, his skill level is still higher.

    Here's the difference, really. The typical cop needs 12 seconds to run an el presidente, with his uniform rig, or he'll have lots of poor hits or a miss or two. When actually competing for a few years, the top hand runs it in 4-6 seconds, depending upon how good the hits are, whether or not he has a mag well funnel, pptical sight, compensator, speed rig, wussy loads, etc. have that cop not practice at ALL for a couple of years, and he'll need 15 seconds and he'll STILL miss 1-2 and he'll have lots of poor hits. The top hand, with nothing but dryfire, will still be able to run the execise (12 shots, a 180 degree pivot, a mag swap, a draw, 4 traverses across the targets, in 6-8 seconds, depending, as before on the requirement for hits in the 10" chest circle, and the gear used.

    That's why some of us train to very high levels, in karate, as athletes, chess players, etc. We can back WAY off and still beat the average guy (almost with our eyes shut).
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,660 Senior Member
    gaiman wrote: »
    you assume that I didn't fire the commander at ALL? Why assume that? Because YOU wouldn't, hmm? I fired an average of 10,000 rds per year back in those times, probably 1000 per year thru the Commander. Just the 1000 rds is more than what most people fire, and since the handling qualities of the go'vt model and commander are so similar, and because I was so good with it, I could have not practiced with the commander at ALL, and still been FAR better with it than the average cop is with his duty pistol, count on that much. I had 3 years in a row when I averaged 40,000 rds per year with the gov't model. :-) When you've shot at the world class level for several years, all you need is dryfire or airsoft to remain more skilled than the average cop (who fires at most 2000 rds per year, and often, only 500 rds or less. ) The latter often has VERY low levels of skill, so even if the top hand degrades by 50%, his skill level is still higher.

    Here's the difference, really. The typical cop needs 12 seconds to run an el presidente, with his uniform rig, or he'll have lots of poor hits or a miss or two. When actually competing for a few years, the top hand runs it in 4-6 seconds, depending upon how good the hits are, whether or not he has a mag well funnel, pptical sight, compensator, speed rig, wussy loads, etc. have that cop not practice at ALL for a couple of years, and he'll need 15 seconds and he'll STILL miss 1-2 and he'll have lots of poor hits. The top hand, with nothing but dryfire, will still be able to run the execise (12 shots, a 180 degree pivot, a mag swap, a draw, 4 traverses across the targets, in 6-8 seconds, depending, as before on the requirement for hits in the 10" chest circle, and the gear used.

    That's why some of us train to very high levels, in karate, as athletes, chess players, etc. We can back WAY off and still beat the average guy (almost with our eyes shut).

    You're one of them highly skilled tell it from the mountain types. Do you have the special shoes?

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • MississippiBoyMississippiBoy Senior Member Posts: 819 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    You're one of them highly skilled tell it from the mountain types. Do you have the special shoes?

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

    Follow me on this....
    Gaiman>>>>> Caiman >>>>>> Gecko.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.