Rich Grassi at thetacticalwire.com writes:
I’ve seen several myths promulgated in the recent past – it’s the internet again — and it’s time to take a look at them. “Shooting double-action (with a DA revolver) isn’t accurate past a few feet. Best to thumb that hammer back and shoot it single action.” If you’re hunting a game animal or trying to hit a cigarette pack at 90 feet, perhaps. If you’re using the revolver in the context of defensive combat, the answer’s no and it’s been no all the way back to Ed McGivern. Don’t believe me, just ask John Pride, LAPD – among other champions of police revolvercraft – or Jerry Miculek . . .
“Night sights are a crutch. You need to use kinesthetic skills so you can make those hits when you don’t have a glowing front sight.” 1. The number of people regularly shooting for practice in conditions of adverse light is nil — the overwhelming majority of armed persons will never get the practice to use that as a crutch. 2. The number of cops able to “shoot by feel” without visual reference to sights is likely to be smaller than the number of people regularly night fire. 3. Many of these people, when they actually get to shoot in dim light with night sights see something new: their sights.
I’m not a fan of hardware solutions to training problems, but they’re not going to get consistent, regular training and practice. We went to modern striker-fired autos not because they’re hugely better – though there are some advantages – but because we wouldn’t train responsibly with hammer-fired TDA autos. It’s that simple. There’s no excuse for not using a light for target ID. If you need it to see the sights, okay by me. But don’t put night sights in the dumpster. They serve a purpose.
These guns are very bad. The FN High Power has a manual thumb safety. The SIG P228 is “double action,” obviously too hard to learn. The GLOCK 19 is one of those “leg shooter” Modern Striker Fired Autos (MSFA) – out of all the thousands who carry and use them, a few people shoot themselves.
“Manual safety levers are a bad idea on defensive handguns.” Sheepdip. They’re a bad idea when we attempt to get the “less inclined” to employ pistols with safeties. If you’re not going to practice, train and prepare, by all means, use a “point gun, pull trigger” interface. If you engage in regular practice and you’re willing to put in some work, the world opens up to you: you can shoot DA revolvers accurately out to some ridiculous distances, you can run a pistol with a manual safety “proprietary to the user,” you can do the mechanics on autopilot freeing up the forebrain to deal with changing conditions. If you don’t like the safety on a handgun, buy one without.
“MSFA pistols shouldn’t be issued to the troops. In fact, the M9/M11 format isn’t that good an idea. In fact, MSFA pistols (pick the brand yourself) are “leg shooters.”” Yeah. And retention holsters with a finger-release are automatically dangerous. Except they’re not – until you start changing holster-types in the same range session, issue them to people who likely shouldn’t have a license to drive – let alone have easy access to the ultimate force option – or shortchange training on Rule 3.
The thing with any firearm is that it’s a firearm. It’s designed to fire a projectile at a considerable speed and make a hole in something some distance from the user. All of a sudden, when it works as designed, it’s dangerous. The Rules are in place for a reason. Of all the things you can ignore – dry practice with gun handling, trigger presses while you watch for movement in the front sight, live fire practice with a plan – one thing you mustn’t ignore is the rules. The troops drive tanks, fly airplanes, shoot artillery – and I can’t trust them with a striker-fired pistol? Please.
“SYG – so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws are racist and promote shootings.” Wrong again. That particular body of law is better described as “No Mandate to Retreat.” Coming from the Castle Doctrine of Common Law – which stated that when attacked in your home, you have no duty to retreat – the current addition to law is that “when in a public place where you have a legal right to be and you are attacked, you have no duty to retreat.” So, when someone yells about repealing the current law, know that they are, by default, promoting a “duty to retreat law.”
If you are victim of a violent home invasion, retreat shouldn’t be required. But, if you can safely move to a safer location, would you? If you’re in a public place and you see trouble brewing, does the fancifully named “Stand Your Ground” law mandate that you wander into the fight? In fact, if you have the opportunity to safely retreat from a potential threat, would you prefer that over engaging in a fight? Okay, that’s the way most folks are. The law doesn’t force you to hold a position against an attack. It allows you to hold that position if you can’t safely retreat – not much of a change.