TexasCHLforum.com

ShootDontTalk wrote:

Feed&Guns wrote: So you think CHL tests should be much harder I assume.

Sorry bud. You lost me with the first sentence followed by the first paragraph. You have no idea who I am or what my theories or realities are. I'm out.

You said, "It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

The CHL class is not a training class but rather a simple test of, if you can even call it that, marksmanship. Since you say "it takes training" to be safe, and the CHL class is not firearms training, it's logical that you must believe the CHL classes should be harder. Otherwise, it would imply that you endorse licensing a bunch of "unsafe" people to carry concealed. I don't have to know you or your theories to know what a logical conclusion is...unless you're a typical liberal and therefore live in a world without logic. I assume most people on the CHL forum don't fit that description. I might be wrong.

I agree that most people don't have the fundamentals down and that training helps improve safety, and even that it's not *entirely* intuitive. I'm sure that Miami cop that shot himself in the leg in that school wished he had "a little more training". But to say that they're not at all intuitive is equally absurd. We were talking about relatively intuitive guns for new shooters who will either not train at all or train infrequently. Given that they won't train, which gun is best for their situation. Pretty sure everyone else reading this understood that point.

But if I lost you with that simple logic in the first paragraph, then the other paragraphs surely were too complex.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

Feed&Guns wrote: I like the idea of a wild west, everyone carrying a "man's gun". But in reality I'd rather them carry something they can shoot instinctively rather than something they have to train with...assuming most people won't train.

You're new, so I'm not going to quibble too much with some things you've said...except this one.

Owning, handling, and shooting a gun is not in any way, shape, or form an "instinctive" exercise. There are two huge liabilities with that reasoning.

1) There is no firearm ever made that allows "instinctive" safe use and handling. It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

2) You are responsible for every discharge of your weapon. You're held to account for each bullet. "Instinctive" won't cut it IF the implication is that there are people who can just pick up a particular make of gun one time in their lives and do it right. As if the gun does all the work for you. We both know that isn't true.

Training doesn't imply going to combat shooting classes every week. Training is getting proper instruction in the safe handling of a firearm and basic instruction in using it correctly. Very few guns have ever been made that do not lend themselves to safe and effective handling and use with a little training. "Instinct" may be used anywhere except when handling something that will end your life with a seemingly insignificant mistake. Assuming most people won't train, engage in proper instruction, is a fatal mistake, and no one who understands that should ever recommend such an individual own a gun.

So you think CHL tests should be much harder I assume.

I'm glad you don't want to "quibble" since we see things the same. Especially since this is a CHL forum, you'll appreciate the difference between your theories and reality. You are right in every respect, but it's the same logic as the people saying "the world would be a safe place without guns". Ya, that's true. But it's uttered by the people who want to start by taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaving the criminals with guns. So it's a false argument.

Owning, handling, and shooting are instinctive to a certain point. You don't see a total noob grabbing the muzzle and pushing the trigger with their toes, do you? It's natural (read: instinctive) to grip the gun at the "grip". It's instinctive to put your index finger where there is a trigger conveniently placed. It's instinctive to point the muzzle toward the target. It's not so instinctive which way the bullets go apparently by the number of people who try to force the magazine in backwards...but that's a finer detail. And, as an extension of this, I'd guess 90 people out of 100 that you handed a live 1911 (who weren't trained) and you said "shoot that large piece of paper 3' away would: grip the gun on the proper end, attempt to pull the trigger with a finger, and point the muzzle at the target. That's all instinctive. But those 90 out of 100 would also NOT take the external safety off. That's "not instinctive". And that's my point.

I'll go further to say that probably 50% or more of CHL holders (gun enthusiasts to some degree) still call a magazine a "clip" and still, if you tested them in a stress situation, would forget everything except the "instinctive parts" like grip, muzzle toward target, and pull the trigger. They go to the range once or twice a year maybe. They buy a gun with a "safety" and probably even carry it condition 3...to be safe. It'd be 6-10 seconds in a stress situation before they remembered that they didn't have one in the chamber and that the manual safety was on. They don't train for that kind of gun. They pull it out, grip the grip, point the muzzle, and yank on the trigger...instinctively.

I never said safety was instinctive or that they are safe handling a gun instinctively. But a gun that doesn't go bang is a club. They meant to buy a gun, not a club. But agree that most people WON'T train no matter how much we emphasize it. We offer four classes: basic intro firearm (safety, nomenclature, basic marksmanship), CHL (to get the license), and post CHL 1 & 2 (situational stuff, drawing from concealment, strong hand/weak hand, low light, etc) so it's not the first time they've ever seen it should it arise. But most people just want to get their license.

Personally, and to my point that I agree with you, I think it's ridiculous that they either have a CHL licensing course at all or that it's as easy as it is. Really? 4 hours of lecture and a shooting test I could pass blindfolded? But it's like drivers licenses. If you can brake and go, you're good. In other countries, the tests are much more stringent. Nothing about defensive driving, slippery surfaces, grades, fixing flats etc. CHL course of fire is no draw, two handed, broad daylight, no stress, no target evaluation (shoot/no shoot), no background clearing check, etc. What kind of a test is that?

AndyC wrote:Folks who don't like 1911s are limp-wristed pinko Commies.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way... ... I'd be the first to agree that they're not a great choice for the typical lazy person's first defensive pistol because they demand the development of familiarity and ideally some expertise in their efficient use. With that said, I'd much rather have the habit of trying to wipe off a non-existent thumb-safety than the reverse

I like the idea of a wild west, everyone carrying a "man's gun". But in reality I'd rather them carry something they can shoot instinctively rather than something they have to train with...assuming most people won't train. My wife, like SO many others, got her CHL and, in the 6 months since, has been shooting 3 times. In that time, she decided she didn't like her Sig 938 so she got a Walther CCP. Shot it once so far. Never carries. Usually doesn't even know where her gun is. Sure as hell doesn't reload it with defensive ammo. And I think most people are more like her than me (me, you, and the other zealots on this board).

Having said that, one of our customers (husband and wife...the wife will be my RO for our CHL classes) comes in and we always talk guns. Started out a feed customer and now is a feed & gun customer. Anyway, her husband (nice, soft spoken man about 60-65 I'd guess...with eyes like Kurt Russel that could stare a hole through you...former SOF) pulls out from his waist (under an untucked t-shirt...never even saw the gun) a full size Coonan in 357 Magnum. So we talked about that for a while. A few days later they bring me a couple of Browning Citori O/U to sell. He demonstrates how his gun is easy to pull out because of some kind of holster lube he used...whatever...but I say, "that's not the Coonan from the other day, right?" "Oh, no. This is my 10mm." He has 3 identical 10mm full size 1911 style pistols. That day he was carrying one of them.

So I guess you can carry full size, and even in 10mm, and if you do it right, nobody would even know. I didn't know and I look for that kind of thing. He's about 5'8"-5'9", 180-190# I'd guess. Just a pretty normal guy. Couldn't meet a nicer, more humble, great couple. Whoda thought?

Excaliber wrote:

Feed&Guns wrote:@OlBill - good point about repetitions. You could do 1000 "manipulations" in your living room. But, my point to them was that most people simply aren't going to even do that. They're going to get their CHL, buy a gun, and then shoot it twice a year maybe. They should practice, but most won't. It's like me and my gym membership. Pay every month. Haven't been in over 6 months though. And it's practically across the street from my house. I did do a few pushups in my living room the other day. Then my dog licked me in my face so I quit and played with the dog. Most people won't train so I recommend a gun that comes most naturally. "Point and shoot". And maybe even consider a laser. I hate for them to get dependent on it, and I don't have one on my carry gun, but for people who simply won't ever train but want to feel safer because they carry... that's how I'm thinking about it. And when they ask about me not having a laser, I tell them I'd be happy to sell them the amount of ammo I shoot each month (in a nice way).

@Taypo - OT, how do you like that VP9? I really thought I wanted one because I liked the grip concept. I carry a glock and didn't like the grip. Thought about M&P followed by XDM and then I saw the VP9. Drool. Then I held one (at Knob Creek, no less, while on vacation crossing the country). Didn't care for the feel for some reason. HKs are great (so I hear) but I was really turned off by the feel. It felt, oddly enough, cheap and flimsy. Reminds me of wanting a Jeep Wrangler so bad until the one day I drove one and hated the feeling of nearly rolling over around curves. Cured my wants in one drive. Now I just put a Hogue grip sleeve on my G19 and feel much better. I'm sure it shoots well like an HK should.

The VP9 has three optional grip inserts for both sides of the grip, and three for the backstrap. With a little experimenting, I think just about anyone can come up with a superior ergonomic setup for their hands. You can use them in any combination (e.g., palm swell on one side and narrow on the other.)

It took me about an hour of fiddling around with different combinations, but I now have the most ergonomic double stack handgun in my collection. I still carry the 1911 more (it's hard to get more ergonomic than a single stack 1911), but when I need high capacity, the VP9 beats my "2 x 4" Glock every time. The trigger is also outstanding for a striker fired gun, and reliability is top notch (as you would expect from H&K). The gun is surprisingly light unloaded, but a full magazine restores the feel you're used to, and it meets your requirement for "draw and shoot". The engineering story behind it is impressive too - H&K didn't just rush this one out the door.

I'd suggest giving it another look after experimenting with the grip inserts.

Everything you said is what I expected. I thought, "M&P has a great idea and a non-2x4 shaped grip...I like that!" Then I saw the VP9 and said, "Man, everything I like about the M&P this has and more. Even more customizable." But when I held one, I was very underwhelmed by the "quality feel". I knew I could modify the grip characteristics to fit better, but I liken it to my eating habits. I detest eating with plastic flatware because it feels cheap. I even hate the flimsy cafeteria style flatware. Now, I'll eat a $1.88 Boston Market on sale TV dinner...but I insist on eating it with "real" flatware. It was kind of like that. Perhaps like you said with it loaded and properly fit, I'd have liked it more. Maybe I'll give it another shot. I really wanted to like that gun, too.

Taypo wrote:I love it already. I was shopping for a G19, almost bought one and lost a coin flip to the wife on who got to buy the next gun (She went CZ). I did a little more research and ended up liking the grip better than the Glock. It was like holding a 2x4. I don't get a flimsy feel at all from it - the grip panels are locked tight on mine.
It's way more accurate than I am at this point.

Ya, I almost got rid of my Glock bc I couldn't get past the 2x4 feeling. Really liked the M&P so I thought I'd love the VP9. The Hogue grip sleeve fixed the 2x4 effect, though. I have a Hogue from Sig on my P238 and love it. By contrast, the straight sides on my wife's P938 are obnoxious. Small, straight grip. But I like that grip concept on my Sig 1911. Guess the full size makes the diff in that grip angle and geometry.

Maybe if I held the VP9 again I'd change my mind. But the few seconds I did hold it I was a little disappointed. Had really high hopes. Maybe the guy's crappy attitude at Knob Creek skewed me. Nah. Don't know. Just felt "plasticky" or something. Hard to describe. Oh, and it was the weekend after the machine gun shoot so I tried to give the KC guy a little break for being worn out.

Oh, and I bought a M&P9 CORE 5" too. Shot it. Don't like it. It's now for sale in the store. So the grip was nice, but I've reconciled with my Glock. Kissed and made up. No more cheatin'. ...until the next little hottie hits SHOTShow 2016. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, baby.

@OlBill - good point about repetitions. You could do 1000 "manipulations" in your living room. But, my point to them was that most people simply aren't going to even do that. They're going to get their CHL, buy a gun, and then shoot it twice a year maybe. They should practice, but most won't. It's like me and my gym membership. Pay every month. Haven't been in over 6 months though. And it's practically across the street from my house. I did do a few pushups in my living room the other day. Then my dog licked me in my face so I quit and played with the dog. Most people won't train so I recommend a gun that comes most naturally. "Point and shoot". And maybe even consider a laser. I hate for them to get dependent on it, and I don't have one on my carry gun, but for people who simply won't ever train but want to feel safer because they carry... that's how I'm thinking about it. And when they ask about me not having a laser, I tell them I'd be happy to sell them the amount of ammo I shoot each month (in a nice way).

@Taypo - OT, how do you like that VP9? I really thought I wanted one because I liked the grip concept. I carry a glock and didn't like the grip. Thought about M&P followed by XDM and then I saw the VP9. Drool. Then I held one (at Knob Creek, no less, while on vacation crossing the country). Didn't care for the feel for some reason. HKs are great (so I hear) but I was really turned off by the feel. It felt, oddly enough, cheap and flimsy. Reminds me of wanting a Jeep Wrangler so bad until the one day I drove one and hated the feeling of nearly rolling over around curves. Cured my wants in one drive. Now I just put a Hogue grip sleeve on my G19 and feel much better. I'm sure it shoots well like an HK should.

ShootDontTalk wrote:It is a tool for your belt. Why restrict the tools available to save your life?

I can give you one very solid tactical reason I carry a 1911 at times. IF I am ever confronted with a rifle or even shotgun wielding threat, I need to be able to direct precision fire at ranges well beyond 25 yards.

I shot 1911's in NRA competition routinely at 50 yards. I could place 5 rounds in a group that measured less than 2 inches - offhand. I know of no other handgun that can deliver that level of accuracy without major modifications that disqualify it for daily carry. In fact, I practiced for matches by offhand shooting at 100 yards. I could maintain 5-6 inch groups at that range. That is AK47 level accuracy. The secret is the 1911 is a single action weapon. The trigger is markedly superior to the vast majority of handguns available for defense.

Do I only carry a 1911? Of course not. Is the 1911 the best handgun for every task? Of course not. But given that EVERY weapon is a compromise, the 1911 does some things better than any other weapon. For that reason alone, it should be considered.

Two things I have learned in 6 decades of shooting: choose a good round loading an adequate bullet, and place your shots properly. The 1911 achieves both of these critical objectives.

You're far more experienced than I am, but I have several issues with your rationale.

1. In self defense situations (which is what we're supposedly talking about...not NRA pistol matches or combat where you're out of rifle ammo), if you're 25 yards or more away, you're supposed to be finding ways to seek cover and avoid the confrontation (supposedly). You're trying to survive the situation, not complete the mission. Most bad situations happen inside 10 yards and at 25 yards, they are generally avoidable. At 50-100 yards, you can barely see the threat. Most of the time, you're not going to be in the Bank of America shoot out or hiding from some threat on the UT tower.

2. I shoot my modified Glock 19 (not quite a race gun) at the range and ring the 6" steel at 35 yards regularly. Not shooting Xs, but definitely minute of man sized groups even at 50 yards. I doubt in a threat situation, though, I could hold that perfect sight picture and stack them up like that.

3. Despite your advantage in experience, I bet I can put 15 rounds of my 9mm into the threat faster than you could put 10 rounds of your select ammo. Why? Because I don't have to do a mag change. Furthermore, it's interesting that the people with the labs that do all the testing are going full circle back to 9mm. You hit on that a bit that the type of ammo matters. Things like the Hornady Critical Defense/Duty are great rounds and make the 9mm much more effective than it maybe used to be. Texas DPS just adopted the Sig P320 in 9mm as their new weapon. They dumped the Sig 226/229 in 357Sig. Even though the 357Sig had more energy, they found the shooters controlled the 9mm better (more effective shot placement) and, of course, the ammo is cheap and abundant. More practice means better shooters (which you kind of touched on...shot placement). If a modestly interested shooter can pay $12/box of 9mm versus $21/box of 45ACP, they might practice more. I really like my Sig 1911 in 45ACP, but I carry a Glock 19. I'm not going to carry an extra mag. I just know that's not me. If I can't get the job done with 15+1 (15 in reality), then either I'm dead or the threat is gone.

Now, if I was in combat and was packing out a ton of mags anyway, I might carry something different. But we're talking about personal protection, not Iraq. Likewise, part of the move to the 5.56 in the rifle rounds was because the theory was that more rounds of a smaller but effective cartridge was better than fewer, bigger rounds. You can argue about "effective cartridge", but the idea was more = better. Right or wrong, it's not the first time "more = better" won out.

carlson1 wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:
On the other hand, carrying anything with NO round in the chamber is a lot more dangerous.

Don't want to take this off topic, but this is a mouth full of wisdom yet some still just don't understand how dangerous it is to carry with an empty chamber thinking they can see the threat, draw, chamber a round, point, and then shoot.

I do a demonstration with many of my customers who are new to guns. I hand them a red ASP training gun. I say, "Okay. Now, put this where you'd carry your gun. Pretend like it's under your shirt or in your purse. When I say, "bad guy! bad guy!" I want you to shoot the threat."

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM draw the gun and just go "bang". Then I take the gun out of their hand and say, "see, it's not instinctive to disengage the safety and especially not to rack the slide." "Unless you are planning on training 1000 rounds a month and on every draw, dropping the safety and charging the weapon, you need to consider a revolver or a striker fired gun with no external safety." "Instinct is to point and shoot. If you don't train otherwise, you need a weapon that fits your instinct."

Their faces look blank for a few seconds while it sinks in and then the light bulb comes on. Every one of them say, "ya. that makes sense."

As such, I have very few handguns guns in my store that have a thumb safety (except my personal Sig 1911 Scorpion used to show off my Osprey suppressor). Revolvers and striker fired, no external safeties are what I like to promote.

oohrah wrote:I don't carry my gov model, because it's too dangerous cocked and locked, with a round in the chamber. And what would be the point if it was not. So I got a PX4 Storm .45, which I can de-cock to DAO.

I know a little off-topic, but you might want to rethink your EDC.

Guessing you'll catch a lot of heat on this comment! I'm also guessing you detest any striker fired pistols. I carry my Glock 19 everyday with one in the chamber and I guess based on what you're saying it's even more dangerous than the 1911 since it doesn't have an external safety. Everyone is entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. In fact, before I knew anything about guns, I approached a cop at the courthouse and said, "Hey! Did you know your gun is cocked??" (He had a 1911 for his duty weapon). He said (abruptly), "Ya, it's supposed to be like that." I said, "really? Seems dangerous. Just thought maybe you didn't know." I walked off and he gave me the "who the hell are you?" look. Many years later, when I developed an interest in guns, I learned about the "cocked and locked" carry method. I flashed back to how dumb I must have looked to that cop.