Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Chasbo00 wrote:For the sake of discussion; "the largest caliber that you can effectively control," how do you define effectively and how do you measure it? I realize the answer will vary among people, but i'm interested in what folks here consider good enough with respect to effectively controlling a handgun.

I was thinking about measuring this aspect as a gun that I can control both two handed as well as single handed and off handed. You don't know what type of situation you'll be in if you have to use it so you may have to go single handed or off handed. I figure if I can't control it like that, I should step down in caliber.

Caliber ia not a good measure of control. Some are snappier, some are more of a push. H&K has a recoil reduction of 30% according to their ads. Try a few pistol manufacturers in different calibers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

ShotgunBlast wrote: I was thinking about measuring this aspect as a gun that I can control both two handed as well as single handed and off handed. You don't know what type of situation you'll be in if you have to use it so you may have to go single handed or off handed. I figure if I can't control it like that, I should step down in caliber.

OK, but how do you quantify the good enough or acceptable standards? For example, how fast measured in hundredths of a second, how accurate measured in inches, and how far measured in yards?

Chasbo00 wrote:OK, but how do you quantify the good enough or acceptable standards? For example, how fast measured in hundredths of a second, how accurate measured in inches, and how far measured in yards?

I don't know. I wasn't looking to conduct any scientific tests when trying out different guns. I'll go with a pass/fail standard, but how I come up with that grade I couldn't tell you.

ShotgunBlast wrote:

Chasbo00 wrote:OK, but how do you quantify the good enough or acceptable standards? For example, how fast measured in hundredths of a second, how accurate measured in inches, and how far measured in yards?

I don't know. I wasn't looking to conduct any scientific tests when trying out different guns. I'll go with a pass/fail standard, but how I come up with that grade I couldn't tell you.

I'm struggling with this too. Here is what my thinking is now regarding an easy-to-do standard:

The 5s Standard

From the ready position:
fire five rounds
in five seconds
at a 5 inch diameter target
at 5 yards distance
repeat for a total of five runs (25rd)
Standard: All 25 rounds are within the 5 inch diameter target, else it's a fail

If there is a question whether a shooter has the basic marksmanship skills to do this, have the shooter first try the drill with an easy to shoot .22 pistol. If they can't do this drill with a .22, then they need to work on their fundamental pistol skills.

Chasbo00 wrote:For the sake of discussion; "the largest caliber that you can effectively control," how do you define effectively and how do you measure it? I realize the answer will vary among people, but i'm interested in what folks here consider good enough with respect to effectively controlling a handgun.

Accurate, repeated hits to the center mass area...as many as required to stop the threat.

ProShooter wrote:
Accurate, repeated hits to the center mass area...as many as required to stop the threat.

OK, but how accurate in terms of both shot dispersion and target distance. And how fast in terms of time?

WRW wrote:Caliber ia not a good measure of control. Some are snappier, some are more of a push. H&K has a recoil reduction of 30% according to their ads. Try a few pistol manufacturers in different calibers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

+1

Even the same caliber in different firearms can be significantly different in terms of recoil.

Try shooting a Sig P232 - the straight blowback design stings... then go fire a Ruger LCP - the locked breech design feels completely different.

Try different designs, find what you can shoot, and practice practice practice...

Neither. Comfort is king. If its big and bulky I aint gonna carry it, so it will sit in a drawer somewhere.

Someone once told me a .22 in the pocket beats a .50 left at home. Sage advice.

Chasbo00 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:
Accurate, repeated hits to the center mass area...as many as required to stop the threat.

OK, but how accurate in terms of both shot dispersion and target distance. And how fast in terms of time?

The only measurement that matters is how many shots it takes to stop the bad guy. I don't think your questions can be answered as presented.

ProShooter wrote:

Chasbo00 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:
Accurate, repeated hits to the center mass area...as many as required to stop the threat.

OK, but how accurate in terms of both shot dispersion and target distance. And how fast in terms of time?

The only measurement that matters is how many shots it takes to stop the bad guy. I don't think your questions can be answered as presented.

Well, let me rephrase it then. What quantifiable and measurable standard would you use to assess if someone was a proficient enough shooter with their carry gun?

my edc was born as .40s&w, but is now configured for .357sig as it's what i shoot most accurately. being single-stack 7+1, it's easy to carry iwb open or concealed, but i carry two spare magazines so round count isn't an issue.

@Chasbo00,
You might want to move while making your shots. Make the target move as well. Start from the holster, not gun in hand. If it must be a rule of 5s, make it a 5" radius circle. If you are partial to the Mozambique drill, two to the 5" radius circle and one to a 5" diameter circle about a foot higher. Anything else that simulates reality can be added. Time your drill and try improving on the time. Then realize that there is no guarantee that, in the event of a defensive situation, that will be good enough

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:@Chasbo00,
You might want to move while making your shots. Make the target move as well. Start from the holster, not gun in hand. If it must be a rule of 5s, make it a 5" radius circle. If you are partial to the Mozambique drill, two to the 5" radius circle and one to a 5" diameter circle about a foot higher. Anything else that simulates reality can be added. Time your drill and try improving on the time. Then realize that there is no guarantee that, in the event of a defensive situation, that will be good enough

This proposed drill/standard is only intended to assess a shooter's basic shooting skill with their carry gun and it's purposely designed to be easy to do nearly anywhere with minimum equipment. You don't need a shot timer or even a stop watch and you can easily construct a target on a plain sheet of paper. It does not include drawing from concealment or a holster as this is not allowed on many ranges. Strings are limited to 5 shots to accommodate 5-shot revolvers. Five repetitions are specified to ensure that the shooter can be meet the standard on demand. My concern is that's it may be too tough a standard, especially with a pocket gun.

I agree with all your points on skills such as drawing and shooting on the move. These are things that many can only do if they participate in action shooting matches or attend a tactical shooting class of some type that includes these skills. For example, ProShooter's Defensive Handgun Class includes live fire and some of these skills. I strongly recommend that folks participate in both types of activities.

Ah, so this is for range use. Do they allow 5 shot strings in under 5 seconds? I've not been to a range but once many years ago.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:Do they allow 5 shot strings in under 5 seconds?

Most ranges do, but I have seen some ranges that restrict rapid fire.

I think I see what you have in mind, though I would phrase it as a desirable objective and not as a minimum standard...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:I think I see what you have in mind, though I would phrase it as a desirable objective and not as a minimum standard...

Well, that's the easy way out. I'm certainly not sold on this drill as a standard yet, in fact I suspect it's too difficult to apply against the entire population of all who carry a gun. Yet, I do think there should be some minimum standards - just not at all sure what they should be.

The minimum standard should be safe handling. Period. I wouldn't deny anybody the ability to defend themselves because they couldn't hit a pie plate of any size at any distance.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:The minimum standard should be safe handling. Period. I wouldn't deny anybody the ability to defend themselves because they couldn't hit a pie plate of any size at any distance.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be denied a right. I've previously stated in this thread that I don't believe the state should require any training for someone to carry a gun. Firearms training should be an individual's responsibility.

So, let me put into context what I mean by standards. Let's say one of your friends or neighbors comes to you and says; "I want you to teach me how to shoot a pistol and I want to be proficient enough to be a responsible and, if needed effective, citizen who carries a handgun." With respect to basic pistol shooting skills, how would you determine if your friend or neighbor was proficient enough? This is the tough part - determining what's good enough. It's easy to say one should be a good as they can be and that we should all strive to be the best we can within time and resources. But, what's good enough?