Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Jun 3, 2011

biosterous posted:

two questions!

1) i'm right handed but my dominant eye is my left one. how does that affect aiming? is it different with a scope vs sights?

This depends on the individual. For pistols, it doesn't matter, put the gun in front of your face and let your body figure it out. You'll either line the gun up with your dominant eye or turn your head to line your eye up with the gun. We can argue which is better but that gets into whether torso cross rotation is preferable to positional asymmetry. Some people have no real eye dominance and need to close one eye otherwise they get double vision, ideally you want to use both eyes open but you do what you need to get your hits.

Long guns are a little different. You can either train yourself to use either your nondominant hand or your nondominant hand. Try both methods and see which feels better. My shooting buddies and I each came to conclusion to use our nondominant eye independently of each other. I know other high level shooters who have chosen the opposite. If you put in the time and practice, your brain will associate mounting the gun with using that eye and will switch automatically. I can actually control which of my eyes is the dominant one. Using fiber optic sights, red dots, and illuminated reticles can give the brain something interesting to help focus on while its developing that skill. Another training tool is using painters tape or card stock to block the non shooting eye to force the brain into using the other one.

biosterous posted:

2) (this is much less important) so is there any real benefit to center axis relock besides looking really loving cool in video games and movies?

keep in mind that i have never touched a gun, and only have nebulous plans to "go to a firing range and shoot some guns for fun" eventually

If I remember right Center Axis Relock (CAR) came about from law enforcement working in confined spaces. In that context its no different from any other collapsed ready position such as short stocking. Any other benefits there might be in regard to indexing or recoil mitigation are secondary. It is very distinct and allows for the gun to be used visually like a punch out which can be beneficial to the actions scene (one of the John Wick directions specifically states this as the reason why it's featured so heavily there).


Jun 3, 2011

Anonymous Robot posted:

What are the arguments against using a center lock stance for defensive carry? I’d never heard of it before seeing it mentioned in this thread today, but I gave a try drawing from holster into that stance and it feels very natural. Most importantly, I acquire my sight much faster drawing into a center lock stance than pushing out into an isosceles stance.

Of course, I haven’t actually tried shooting from that position yet. I see how isosceles is a superior stance for shooting accurately, and I can see that center lock would not be ideal for engaging targets that aren’t directly in front of you. But as a muay thai fighter I definitely appreciate the benefit of having the firearm closer to your body in a 5-10 foot range defensive encounter (and having my elbows available) and again, I acquire my sight much faster.

Namely that there are other techniques out there that accomplish similar tasks that transition well to modern isosceles. The point of a compressed ready is to avoid presenting the gun into unknown space or if the area is too confined to allow a proper presentation (more a long gun issue then pistol.) I run a compressed ready very similar to step 3 of a typical 4 Position Draw.

If you're concerned about weapon retention, Craig Douglas of ShivWorks teaches a thumb pectoral index in his ECQC class and I've talked to dudes that recommend a mag-rib cage index. Both of those techniques work by deliberately aiming for the lower torso so that any missed shots will go into the ground while making space to be able use a more traditional power isosceles stance to deliver fast, accurate shots with full accountability. CAR is reliant on isometric tension for its recoil control which but may be familiar if you shoot weaver a lot.

If you want to see this in practice, John Lovell did a full set of videos working with Craig on that type of shooting and caps it all off by doing it in force-on-force

Jun 3, 2011

Smegma Princess X posted:

I'm bringing this here from the Stim Check thread.

I've never had to own and care for a gun before, the last gun I really ever used was my dad's M1 carbine, over 20 years ago hunting beaver. I want a rifle, but I'm looking for something that is not as "point-and-shoot" as the AR that Joe Wannabe-Fash down the street would buy to feel like a big man. The only requirements are that the gun, ammunition, and accessories would need to fit within my $1200 pittance that I got as an American victim of capitalism.

Also yes I would consider dressing my gun up like Milsurp Barbie.

An AR is honestly your best way to hit those requirements. If you absolutely can't stand the aesthetic, maybe something like a Ruger PCC?

That said, it is absolutely worse at everything you want to do compared to an AR including playing gun barbie.

Jun 3, 2011

poopgiggle posted:

The consensus is pretty clear. Lasers are good for the following:

1. Small handguns (S&W J-frames and Ruger LCPs) with small, useless sights.
2. Police who may have to shoot around a ballistic shield, since that makes using the sights hard.

Otherwise you're better off with irons or a slide-mounted optic.


Generally speaking, you want All the Lumens for a pistol light, I'd even go as far as recommending a TLR-1 or a Surefire X300U. There is no such thing as too much light and most of time people are selecting smaller lights due to aesthetics rather than any real practical benefit.

Sage Dynamics did a tongue-in-cheek video on the concept:

Jun 3, 2011

Typically then you look at other methods of mounting such as using the dovetail. for example.

The angle isn't an issue so much as durability. RDS on a handgun take a lot of abuse during the normal firing cycle and milling the slide is typically the most secure method.

Jun 3, 2011

Adequate Panther posted:

I was iffy on the RP9, I'd heard decent things about the Ruger, though. I'm not a fan of the Glock style personally, but no issues with the others. Do you have specific pros and cons to each?

I can only personally speak to glocks and 320's

Incredible aftermarket support; Mags, spare parts, holsters, accessories are all common, cheap, and readily available.
Easily the most reliable stryker on the market. I've put over 10k through my 19 and 34 combined and the only issues were due to a short slide catch spring on my 34 (still ran 99.993% of the time at my last class).
Said lack of style is a deliberate design choice that forces you to angle the muzzle down and engage the largest parts of your arm to control recoil allowing you to maintain good accuracy at speed. The blockyness make it easier to hold and torque the gun on target.

Requires customization to be make up for certain shortfalls (the original sights on the older models are not the best, trigger isn't great out of the box)
MOS system is subpar for mounting optics requiring third party plates

Sig P320
Incredibly customizable out of the box. The serialized triggers allows one firearm to switch between full size, compact, and subcombat as long as you have the conversion kits. Changing frames does not need an FFL.
Decent factory trigger, good sights.
Adoption by US Army means that parts and aftermarket support will continue to exist whenever SIG gets bored and moves on to new projects.

High bore axis combined with a more neutral wrist position means that while the gun points well, recoil control is mediocre. I consistently shot 1" high due to the grip shifting on me during recoil (gun was verified to be accurate by a much better shooter then me)
Older models are not drop safe
Mags are expensive and SIG has a bad habit of not supporting older product lines

A post from a Thunder Ranch instructor explaining grip angle in more detail.

I'll let someone else comment on CZ and M&P's. I have heard good things about the PPQ from sources that I trust but I haven't had time to shoot one for myself.

For what it's worth I switched from a 320 to a glock 19 because of the performance difference I saw at speed. I have seen M&Ps go down in classes before but it's a limited sample size.

Jun 3, 2011

FauxhawkSatan posted:

Don't forget magazines are consumables and also very likely to be legislated so at a point in time you may be stuck with whatever you have on hand. I honestly don't believe you can ever over buy on magazines. I have ~75 ar mags and ~30 Glock mags and would be more comfortable getting those numbers to 100 and 50 respectively.

At a bare minimum I would have at least 10 magazines for any gun I shot with regularity and depended my life on.

Edit: just looked at my list and I'm at 106 ar mags, 32 17rnd Glock mags, 11 15rnd mags, and 9 21rnd mags.

I keep a minimum of 3 mags for any gun I consider curiosity/teaching guns, 5 for anything I find fun, and 10+ for a training/self defense/competition/serious business gun. I just grab an extra glock or AR mag as a thank you to the local gun shop for letting me window shop.


californiasushi posted:

I didnít notice my difference in splits over a timer between our g17 and a non legion p320 x5

The sig is more accurate than the glock. Reviews in gun mags back that up. The barrel in the p320s at least the x series lock up tighter. You can get great accuracy out of glocks but most likely youíll need a fitted barrel

Don't know what to tell you. It was a repeatable, and measurable difference for me. Stock Gen 3 Glock 19 vs a 320 with Trijicon HD's
It pissed me off to no end since I enjoyed shooting sigs and hated glocks but there's no sense in arguing with the timer. In many ways it's better now. I give zero fucks about em so I focus on shooting the pistol better. Then again, I'm only pulling high 80s to low 90s on B8's at 25 yards.

Out of curiosity, have you had the chance to see how the Gen 5's fair accuracy wise?

MantisClaw fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Apr 19, 2020

Jun 3, 2011

Proper Kerni ng posted:

Don't all 50 states assume that a legally married couple are a single entity for legal purposes, unless/until that marriage is dissolved? If one partner in the marriage is a Prohibited Possessor, obviously neither can have firearms in the house, but otherwise don't they automatically have Power Of Attorney for each other?

I admit I have no honest idea about any adversarial aspect of it on account of being Actually Happily Married™.

Not sure how the above works here, but Hawaii specifically forbids loaning handguns unless the registered owner is physically present. The only around this is joint registration which requires both spouses to be physically present during the process. Longguns currently have no such restriction.

Jun 3, 2011

Holsters are a lot like guns in that a little bit extra money goes a long way.

Some general concepts to consider:
  • The purpose of the holster is to secure the firearm and to protect the trigger. Rigid material such as kydex usually works better in this regard. Good leather is also acceptable but is usually more expensive. Hybrid (kydex and leather combo) holsters tend to be not great as the different materials wear down at differently speeds. Soft fabric holsters are straight up a bad idea do to the flexibility of the material and the risk of said material getting into the trigger guard.
  • A holster optimized for a single firearm will generally be better then a multipurpose holster.
  • Choose a level of retention that is suitable for your purpose. Retention is measured by how many different steps is needed to remove the pistol; An open topped holster that relies on friction is considered Level I passive retention. A duty level holster such as a Safariland with an ALS button, and SLS hood that must be disengaged before the draw is considered active Level III retention. A good way to test your retention methods is to put your unloaded gun into the holster, turn the holster upside down, shake it, and see if the gun falls out. If it stays put, you should be good. We want the gun to stay in the holster until WE decide otherwise. The more exposed the gun is to the general public the more retention you should seek. A CCW holster are typically Level 1 as their primary protection is concealment. Duty holsters have higher retentions as LEO/mil types are typically performing for physical tasks and stopping people from taking your gun is a real concern. If you open carry for whatever reason, STRONGLY consider some level of active retention (It's still stupid). A Level I holster is perfectly acceptable for most entry level defensive shooting classes or general range use.
  • The holster should be secure enough that you can draw and re-holster with only one hand. Requiring multiple hands increases the chance of flagging yourself during an already risky task and is usually caused by the holster not interfacing well with the belt. A sturdy belt is also a good idea as a belt that flexes on you during the draw can cause issues. A holster that does not have belt cuts or loops can have issues being yanked out of your pants still attached to the gun. If it takes effort to put the holster on or off, then it probably isn't going anywhere.

If you're looking for an intro holster, BladeTech is decent and you can always upgrade once you know what you're looking for

poopgiggle posted:

That's a pretty good idea.

Depends on whether you want an OWB carry holster, an open carry holster w/ active retention (don't open carry though), or a range/competition holster.

Safariland OWB holsters are reliably pretty good, and many of them are pretty good values. The Safariland 5198 is roughly $30 and it's a good range/competition holster. The Safariland 7377 is a good retention holster but it's a little bulky to conceal; they seem to run about $40.

Seconding Safariland as another good option.

Jun 3, 2011

rump buttman posted:

Another stupid question. Are you suppose to shoot pistols with both eyes open? I was taught to keep both eyes open shooting shotguns and it’s what I’ve been doing while dry firing. The Glock sights are hard for me to pick up when focusing down range (wall 20 feet away), so I’m not sure.

I would recommend keeping a hard front sight focus at this stage in your shooting path. The front sight should be crystal clear and the target slightly fuzzy. By doing so, you're paying attention to the most critical part of the sights allowing you to make unconscious micro corrections without thinking about it. The brain is pretty good at lining up blocky things without direct input. Your primary goal should be making sure that the sights are not moving during the trigger press. You'll have a bit of a wobble zone and that's normal but a bunch of movement at the end of the trigger press can be an sign of misapplied fundamentals.

Check your PMs.

Jun 3, 2011

Jack B Nimble posted:

Thanks, I see now the glock thread OP details the two tools needed. Together they cost as much as my sights so of course I'll buy them for the one Glock I own.

Also look into Dawson precision. I ran them on my G34 before I put a RDS on it and much prefer them to the amerigo hi vis unless you REALLY want tritium. They also come with sight tools. Not amazing ones but they work. Remember that blue loctite is your friend for the front sight.

If you're running an older gen glock that's not listed on their website, you can shoot them an email and they're pretty quick at responding.

Jun 3, 2011

I prefer a red fiber optic front with black rears so you have something visually interesting to draw your attention up front and nothing to distract you in the back. I find that setup naturally aids finding the front sight and letting the brain automatically process alignment with the rear sight. Note that this is for primarily for running the gun at speed but I've had good success then shooting at 25 yds mainly due to the width of the front sight.

So I guess single dot?

You see something similar with the Frank Proctor Y sights

Jun 3, 2011

californiasushi posted:

i'll also go against the grain here and recommend people (not just newbies) to look at guns other than glocks if they want a striker-fired polymer gun.

i don't really think glocks are very easy to shoot well for most people. i've seen people shoot them well (i would consider shooting 3" groups or less at 25y freestyle shooting a combat handgun well) but it's pretty rare. i understand that can be a small sample size, a lot of crappy shooters having glocks, glocks mechanical accuracy with a particular type of bulk ammo not shooting 3", whatever but i have seen a bunch of people shoot a glock not very well and immediately improve by switching to a different gun. last time i was shooting pistol at the outdoor range i let some guy borrow my sig p320 x5. he was all over a b8 target at 15y, including shots outside the white. with the p320 he was mostly in the 10 ring. he reduced his group more than 50% just by switching to a different gun from a glock. this isn't rare in my experience.

on top of being more difficult to shoot very well across all conditions, glocks can also be rough on newer shooters. limp wristing, brass flying back at your face, "shooting left", etc are all things that aren't very uncommon. a lot of people will say that a gun shoots more accurately than they do, and of course they're technically right. but more people will shoot a more accurate, easier to shoot gun well, than one that isn't. in much the same way i think a lot of people don't think they're good rifle shooters because they came from milsurp, an ak, fal, or whatever and are blown away at the results when they shoot an accurate bolt gun or ar15/10, i think a lot of don't think they shoot a handgun very well because they come from glocks. i think they hold back a lot of shooters for various reasons, one of them being that so many people present them as the only option. i firmly believe there's a lot of people who can benefit from switching away from a glock.

i agree that the aftermarket for a glock is a good thing, because you'll use it immediately by buying new sights since the factory ones are awful and most likely soon after that getting a new trigger/trigger parts since the trigger isn't objectively very good either. we have a glock 17 that i'm happy with, but just the gun was over $1100 with all the parts, and extra for the optic. we have a sig p320 x5 that i'm happy with, and it was less than $800 without an optic. all this aftermarket introduces reliability issues as well. our sig p320 x5's have been very reliable with all types of ammo whereas our two most recent glocks with many aftermarket parts and dots won't cycle all types of ammo reliably, such as fed syntech. the p320 x5/legion has been the most popular gun at the uspsa carry optics nats the past couple years largely because it's a very economical option that shoots very well. all you need to do is add a $130 gray guns trigger. for a newbie, i'm not sure how important the aftermarket is. most people will just end up with a holster and a few extra mags.

i'll put in a personal vote for trying a p320 x series gun since i think they're great and i do think the p320 platform will get MUCH more popular in the future. glock "supremacy" will only last so long as they're already being outclassed imo but it does take a while for prevailing attitudes to change

I've seen the reverse happen as well with a sample size of over 200 students each year. Ultimately everyone shoots differently and will prioritized their needs accordingly. I have trouble making par times as opposed to scoring hits so my focus is on guns that are easy to run speed (Glock in my case). The Catch-22 is that being able to diagnose what works well for someone is a skill that only comes through experience and that's something that newbies by definition will not have.

This is why my recommendation these days is 'Buy a modern pistol issued by a major military or a large urban PD and then go shoot and take classes.' Aka the 'Bag of Guns' concept that Giddings likes to use. A newbie will not be able to take truly advantage of any platform and they are best served by getting formal education so they can figure out what works. Having a gun that is extremely common/in high demand last any on that list means that when you switch you're not too much out financially if/when you figure what works best.

Jack B Nimble posted:

So the defects from the p320 found in US military testing have been 100% fixed and I should consider them absolutely as reliable as comparable guns like Glocks? Not sarcasm, I'm actually asking because I don't know anything about them but I figure I'll be seeing more of them, both in pop culture and at the range, now that they're replaing the Berreta.

From my understanding, yes. I have had better luck with hard primers with glocks vs 320s but that's a minor thing.

Jun 3, 2011

Nitrousoxide posted:

So 300 lumens should do the trick? I looks like that suggestion doesn't have a USB recharged battery, and I don't really want to be fussing around with tiny non-rechargeable batteries.

Speaking from personal experience, a 600+ lumen light in the face will absolutely disorient someone for a couple seconds which can be a deciding factor should lethal force be needed. I still have the scars from that force-on-force class. Controlling someone with light is also thing.

I'm not a fan on strobe settings personally, as they tend to be just as disorienting to the user and the recipient. A bright enough light can cause a similar effect but allow me to have full visual data of what's going on.

Nitrousoxide posted:

So 300 lumens should do the trick? I looks like that suggestion doesn't have a USB recharged battery, and I don't really want to be fussing around with tiny non-rechargeable batteries.

For the high end lights, you typically get an hour of use at max discharge. We might be seeing pistol lights using rechargable 18350/18650 lithium batteries in the near future but for right now a 12 pack of good CR123s typically lasts me a year for 3 WMLs and 2 handhelds. My handhelds get there batteries changed way more then the WML's ever will.

Jun 3, 2011

If we really wanted to split hairs, I would argue yes. All things being equal a 12 lbs DA trigger is harder to accidentally move then a 6 lbs striker. That being said most strikers have mechanisms as such the Glock trigger safeties that will act to help prevent a negligent discharge.

ND'ing while reholstering is a problem solved by being deliberate rather then changing equipment. For most of TFR, there no reason to holster at speed. Reholstering should be a controlled process where you look the gun into the holster.

A consistent theme I'm noticing in your posts is that you are looking for equipment solutions to training problems. That is a VERY expensive way to go about this hobby and I would strongly recommend getting some formal training, if possible in your area.

Jun 3, 2011

Nitrousoxide posted:

I'd imagine I'm orders of magnitude more likely to hurt myself with a negligent discharge then to protect myself in a self defense situation, even if I just use it at the range and keep it locked up at home. So I'm pretty concerned with reducing that risk.

Which is why I suggested training. A solid fundementals based course that incorporates holster work will absolutely cover administrative functions such as proper drawing and reholstering. Not all training is High Speed - Low Drag 'Stop the Threat' focused, though that is what sells.

I understand that you are concerned about that risk and that's a good thing. It means that you're thinking about potential consequences. I am merely suggesting that building a strong foundation through proper instruction then using that knowledge base to allow you to make informed decisions will be easier and cheaper in the long run. Internet arguments are not a replacement for understanding context through experience.

Jun 3, 2011

eonwe posted:

Probably not. I was just erring on the side of caution. I'll at least be taking some kind of gun safety course.

And I was thinking about a Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0, full size. I thought the thumb safety was kinda nifty and that's one of the recommended handguns of the video posted in the OP

Got it. I think maybe I'll just have to see how they feel. I read that some people complain about how a glock feels in their hands. Maybe kinda subjective tho.

This is something that got touched on a while back in this thread. New shooters, by definition, don't know how to shoot and don't have the experience to make informed judgements. It is almost a certainty that you will pick wrong the first time in some way shape or form and that is OK, you will learn what features you like and don't like as part of the learning process. Should your original choice be a popular option (G19 or P320 as an example), you will not take as big of financial hit if you decide to sell that gun to fund a more informed purchase.

That being said if you want to experiment and try various pistols out before purchasing, be sure to use measurable metrics. Going off of 'feeling' alone is unreliable at best as human beings generally suck at self evaluation. Use scorable targets and timers to provide data; Shooting a higher score on a B8 or similar style target is proof of performance. Achieving similar results in less time is another indicator.

Consider a testing standard such as below:

1st String: 0 rounds, 5 yards, untimed. 10 reps of dryfire.

This your chance to learn the pistol. With the gun unloaded, aim the gun at the target, and press the trigger straight to the rear without disrupting the sights. If the sights move, you're doing it wrong. You may have to cycle the action between reps to reset the trigger. Be sure to follow the 4 Firearm Safety Rules while manipulating the gun.

2nd String: 10 rounds, 5 yards, untimed, 1+0 Drill. Score when complete.
This drill is an excellent warm up for live fire as you get practice loading the gun, removing the mag, shooting, and dryfire in one rep. Be sure to pay attention to your sights during dryfire. Any movement in dryfire is likely occurring in live fire as well. Again, be sure to follow the 4 Firearms Safety Rules during all manipulations.

3rd String: 10 rounds, 5 yards, [[Optional: 2 min par time]], 10 rounds slow fire. Score when complete.
This is a pure accuracy test. Nothing fancy. Just 10 rounds shot to the best of your ability.

4th String: 10 rounds, 5 yards, [[Optional: 5 sec par time per rep]], Empty Gun Start x10. Score when complete.
Start with the gun unloaded, pointed downrange with the action locked open (if possible). Load gun and fire one shot. Reset and continue until 10 shots have been fired in total. Consider loading a single round in the magazine to speed up the reset. This is a ergonomics test. How well can you manipulate the firearm in question. Be sure to follow the 4 Firearm Safety Rules during all manipuation.

5th String: 10 rounds, 5 yards, technically untimed, 5 Shot 1 Sec Cadance x2. Score when complete.
This is a speed test. A gun that performs better in this string will be easier to run at speed. Increase cadence to 1/2 sec if this drill proves to be too easy for and your range will allow it.

6th String: 10 rounds, 10 yards, [[Optional: 10 sec par time]]. The Test. Score when complete.
(Vickers is problematic as discussed in the racism thread but it's still a good drill).
This is a final drill that emphasizes a balance of speed and accuracy. This is also a good opportunity to note where your failures occurs so they can be targeted later.

Feel free to adjust distance and par times to match your skill level. By comparing final scores against each other, you can get a more realistic idea of what you shoot better.

MantisClaw fucked around with this message at 09:27 on May 28, 2020

Jun 3, 2011

poopgiggle posted:

Regardless, they put more weight at the end of the barrel which should *in theory* keep the muzzle down. I keep meaning to ask some of the Roland Special gang if they notice any recoil difference between 124gr +P ammo and standard-pressure 147. Theoretically the former should make more gas and run the comp better.

This what's been reported to me by my friends that own them. There is some noticeable effect even with 115gr practice ammo but you see more performance with hotter loads.

Jun 3, 2011

eonwe posted:

Thanks for the tips folks. I signed up for a 1 on 1 gun safety course from someone that seems to be pretty well reviewed. When we do the range portion he is going to let me try a variety of pistols and see if I have a preference.

Good job. Be sure to ask questions especially if you don't understand.

Jun 3, 2011

I got you.

Thermopyle posted:

How do I find and pick good beginner pistol training/classes/instructors? How do I evaluate such a thing before choosing one?

Reposting the conversation that last time this came up in the general thread:

poopgiggle posted:

Here's the instructor bio page for a quality, regional-level shooting school that I've trained at in the past: They don't have much of a national profile but are well-respected in the area.

Here's the stuff on there that would tell me, as a prospective student, that they are a quality institution:

- Competition shooting background for most instructors. Indicates that they can at least shoot well.
- List of outside training taken from other instructors. Indicates that they're focused on continually improving their own skills.
- Several Tom Givens instructor development course graduates on staff. Indicates that, at the very least, someone taught them how to teach, and that someone was Tom loving Givens.

tl;dr do they have verified shooting abilities? do they have verified teaching abilities? legit instructors will have both and will proudly give you their credentials.

e: the Powers school's instructor credentials aren't very impressive. You can basically get NRA Handgun Instructor creds in a box of Cracker Jacks. At least they've been to Thunder Ranch, which is a well-respected school.

Proper Kerni ng posted:

You can often get a broader picture of how a school/trainer is regarded by former students (and how they present themselves to prospective students) by searching for their name along with "facebook"/"tumblr"/"twitter"/"youtube", et cetera; a lot of places that have good reviews show their rear end on social media as fudds or chuds, and some places that get negative reviews address them in a way that makes it clear someone was slagging on them for reasons unrelated to the quality of their training.

MantisClaw posted:

I checked out the triple threat website and I'm not impressed. The photos and video they're using for promotional material all show outdated techniques and practices. The only thing they offer other then what appears to be state required generic CCW stuff is an 'Active shooter class' which is a pretty big jump. Most places will want to start a new customer in a core fundamental class to vett them before letting them jump into a course they may not be ready for. I've seen way to many people who thought they were awesome crash and burn because they never knew what shooting under pressure was like.

As a general rule I avoid people who use the term 'Tactical' in their course description. It's usually an indication that they're trying to pull the 'operator' marketing lever to fill classes and it attracts people who are trying to LARP the cool guys. Another indicator is a meaningless resume padding. I don't need to know that you qualified Expert 20 years ago, or every mandatory department training you attended. Like poopgiggle said look for them attending national level schools or instructors. NRA certs are meaningless unless that's specifically required by law like my state.

I break training down into three categories:
Skill Development: The class is focused entirely on the shooting. The goal here is to become as proficient as possible so you can achieve 'unconscious competence'. If you've never been to an instructor before, you should probably start here.
Problem Solving: This is a class where you spend more time thinking then shooting. Injured shooter, vehicle CQB, shoot house, and even some competitive shooter classes all can develop your ability to think with a gun in your hand.
Validation: This is where everything comes together. Force on Force, scenario training, shooting a match, anything where you're tested against other people at speed. This is where you get to see where everything falls apart and what you need to work on.

Order of priority for me when looking to travel for a class:

1. Is what they teach relevant to my skill level and lifestyle. If I CCW, I should probably be taking more handgun then carbine classes. Even if I don't plan to shoot long range on a regular basis, I may still choose to take one as it will give me greater understanding on how to run a carbine.

2. Can they explain what they teach. Anyone can parrot information but it takes understanding the material to be able to break it down and explain it to someone who doesn't get it on the first try. 'Shut up and do it' methodology only really applies in organizations with rigid hierarchy. Granted there may not be time on the line to go over things in more detail but most good instructors will take the time during lunch or breaks or afterward to sit down and try to help you understand whatever you're having trouble with.

3. Experience with other styles then their own. Do they attend other classes? Have they tested various methods to see what works the best? Have those tests been validated through metrics (targets, shot timers, real world situations)? This is where it may be advantageous to take a course from someone who is not a naturally talented shooter. Someone who has had to sweat blood and tears to get to where will have tried multiple paths to get to where they are. Someone with natural talent and practice may only know THEIR way but don't know the coaching cue you need now simply because they've never been there.

4. Can they shoot. Do they demo. Note that demos don't have to be at full speed, but there should be at least one person on their staff who can show you what right looks like. That being said, if they do shoot demos, look at the instructor not the target.

5. Background. Generic LEO and .mil experience means nothing to me. Same with combat deployments. Likewise XX years of competitive shooting. If they want to provide that information it should be relevant. Sniper, SWAT experience, HSLD operator types , A Class and above standing in USPSA or equivalent. That being said make sure their background is appropriate to the class; A pure USPSA shooter probably shouldn't be teaching room clearing for example.

Listen to the community. Find out who travels outside your area for training and listen to what they say. If they seek out the same stuff you're interested in, give those instructors a shot. You can learn something from every class even if it's what not to do. In the end everyone is teaching the same thing. How to get there is where everyone differs.

Jun 3, 2011

I'd advise against the XD if you're looking for a self defense handgun. They have tendency not to hold up well when subjected to high rounds counts in a compressed time period.

Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics keeps records of what guns show up to his classes and their issues and the XD doesn't have a great reputation. If you are dead set on Not-A-Glock, and granted, the California roster might limit what you have available to you, there are other options out there such as the Sig P320, HK VP9, S&W M&P 2.0, and Walther PPQ to name a few that are in the same price range while being higher quality.

If you can afford to do so, I'd recommend getting some formal training from a reputable instructor. Most instructors will have loaner guns and gear and having a solid skill foundation will help you make more informed purchasing decisions.

Jun 3, 2011

flightless greeb posted:

Both of those guns are DA/SA which takes more practice and training to become proficient with than striker fired guns like a Glock. If you're down to do the work or you're not initially super serious about defensive use then I won't discourage you, that's the route I went after all. I didn't start keeping a gun loaded in my house until I'd finished a competition season and felt intimately familiar with the reliability, controls and trigger of my USP

As for the particular guns, the SIG you mentioned is their budget option from a decade ago before they invented the P320 and has very little to recommend it besides price. The CZ on the other hand is a good gun, although for strict home defense and range use I'd personally prefer the full size SP01 to the compact P01. If you're planning to carry it or have smaller hands then things might be different.

Another thing to consider is that supporting equipment for a SP2022 will be much harder to source then the CZ. Holsters, mags, all that stuff adds up over time.

Jun 3, 2011

poopgiggle posted:

Guide to choosing a defensive handgun

An excellent write up.

My only thoughts would be to clarify what a 'good trigger' is. For me, I define it as a trigger I can easily manipulate with minimal disruption of the sights. Much like 'hand feels', people don't know what a quality trigger feels like or what it's like to shoot one.
I had a roommate who thought a stock AK trigger was a crisp, clean, break until he got to work with one of my Geissele triggers.

Trillhouse posted:

It looks really good to me and there are some resources I hadn't seen before. I appreciate all the work you did.

I don't know if it fits the topic of the post, hell it could probably be a topic in itself, but maybe a section on lights/lasers/red dots? I know a lot of new people are attracted to crimson trace lasers and pretty much every brand is releasing optic-ready pistols now. Might be a good thing to touch on.

I would add it as a separate paragraph regarding 'handgun accessories'. I'll try writing something regarding dots. I've only been dedicated to shooting them for less then a year and I still have a lot to learn on them so if anyone else wants to contribute, go right ahead.

Jun 3, 2011

Put red dot on gun. Zero optic. Done.

More seriously, it's largely personal preference. Some people prefer the optic as rearward as possible to allow for a wider field of view, some prefer it more forward as to take up less visual real estate. I prefer mine to be roughly in line with the magwell as I find that helps with the balance on my guns.

Honestly don't stress optic placement with a dot as long as it's not on the handguard. Magnified optics is a different story.

As far as irons. Some people advocate for a larger sight radius as that typically allow you to be more precise when aiming but you'll also find others advocating for roughly 14" of distance between the front and rear sights. Again this is largely personal preference.

I prefer to run front sight as forward as possible and the rear sight a rail or two forward from the rearmost slot, this is mainly to avoid interfering with the charging handle which I use WAY more then my irons.

I run LVPO's for home defense but I also have bad eyes and the adjustable diopter allows me to mimic my prescription if I can't put my glasses on.

Jun 3, 2011

Captain Log posted:

God drat, I want this apocalypse to be over so I can play with Android's fancy Glocks.

The cost makes it a bigger decision that a new holster or something, but I'm really thinking about a dot for my G19. I don't realistically think I'm going to be carrying it much with the G43 being in my collection.

Mantis, when you've ran completely new shooters on a red dot - what results do you get vs. irons?

We talking pistols or rifles?

With rifles, it's an automatic improvement. The notion of 'put dot on thing and pull trigger' is much easier for people to grasp and I'll see hits increase dramatically.

Pistol is more of a mixed bag. One of the benefit of a handgun RDS is that it tells you everything you're doing wrong. The problem is it tells you EVERYTHING that you're doing wrong. If your presentation is poor, the dot will tell you. If your recoil control is poo poo, the dot will tell you. If your trigger control is terrible, the dot will tell you. If you can't keep the pistol steady, the dot will tell you. Some people CANNOT handle the amount of information they are presented with and nope the gently caress out. Others, it's to much of an ego check. Some people (myself including) will want to use all that info to be as precise as possible which CAN slow them down. For those individuals who can accept the information that the dot is giving them and adjust their practice accordingly, it's amazing.

That said, while I don't see any immediate benefits or drawbacks to using a dot, the long term benefits that can gained is absurd. A handgun RDS by itself will not automatic make you a better shooter but it can help you reach a much higher potential.

Jun 3, 2011

Loan Dusty Road posted:

Hey, Iíll eventually fix it once I decide I can afford an RS Regulate ok? At least itís on an Arsenal quad rail.

Iíd also like to thank you for your hands on super grip post. Iíve adjusted my grip and how hard Iím clamping during dry fire and Iím seeing instant results. Iím not measuring my shots as you would request, but I can say itís night and day so far. Iíll work on drills, and timed, soon enough!

But worked on my grip so much that I took out my Buckmark with a new Burris FF3 on it and the very first shot I clamped my thumb pad in the slide and lost some skin and a lot of blood! First time Iíve ever done that with this gun and I blame my thumb forward squeeze the ever living poo poo out of your pistol grip and well!

Changed 3 bandaids while at the range and I blame you Mantis!

Sorry, I should have clarified that advice is specifically for free float handguards which are almost the standard these days. The idea is to avoid shifting the rail and thus the optic while the barrel remains stationary. That kind of setup on an AK is fine. Pressure on the handguard will still shift the optics but it will also shift the barrel so the difference won't be nearly as extreme.

The USMC shooting team did a decent video on the whole concept of barrel flex

Jun 3, 2011

Note that 50/200 or 36/300 makes several assumptions about barrel length and ammo selection and may not accurately represent reality. Unless you can actually confirm at the appropriate distance or have all of the appropriate data, all we're doing is making educated guesses.

Personally I run 50 yd zeros for my carbines and 100 yd zero for anything that's got decent magnification.

Jun 3, 2011

Nitrousoxide posted:

Why can't we all just use mrads with their .1 increments. Does every measurement system in the US have to be the most obnoxious. Quarter moa, half moa. All split up into a base 60 system which is supposed to mesh with our stupid imperial inches in base 12 and feet in base what the gently caress ever, because who the gently caress knows how many are in a mile.

I'll take the MRAD system thank you very much.

Meh, long distance shooting is the same no matter what measurement system you use. I personally find the math easier in mils but I can work in moa if I need to.
If you really want to get technical you actually can adjust more precisely with 1/4 moa turrets then .1 mil ones.

Mathematically, 1 MOA = .3 mils so if we are trying to adjust 1 moa with our respective turrets, we get:

1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 1 moa = .3 mils
.1 + .1 + .1 = .3 mil = 1 moa

You get 4 adjustments vs 3 for the same angle, which is a potential reason why someone might pick a moa setup.

ThinkFear posted:

Could be worse, there are always mil reticles with moa adjustments.

Mismatched reticle and turret setups should be burned at the stake.

Jun 3, 2011

Peeches posted:

I can't find any online course that equals that nra one, but I'm still looking.
One person at a time, absolutely great advice. I'm confident and I'm careful. I want them to prepare ahead of time with basics, so I guess I need to start watching YouTube videos.
I'd love to be an instructor someday, so I guess I'll see how this goes.
Thank you!

Being an instructor is easy. All you have to do is convince someone to pay to listen you talk.

More seriously:
  • Keep classes or range sessions small or preferably one on one especially when starting out. Multiple students at a time is more time efficient for the instructor but the quality of individual education diminishes the more people there are. Speaking from personal experience, keeping to a 4:1 student to instructor ratio or smaller has the students feeling like they're getting individual attention which results in them becoming more invested in the material.
  • Start with safety and administrative manipulation (load, unload, make safe, etc). If they cannot complete these tasks with the proper respect it deserves, they do not progress. This usually isn't an issue with brand new shooters who want to learn, but you'll see it more with the 'Been shootin' all muh life' crowd.
  • Once you're confidant that they are capable of safe gun handling, move on to fundamental markmanship. Students are psychologically intimidated by distance not by target size. Starting them up close with a small 1" square at 3 yards is not as scary compared to a 3.5" square at 10 yards despite both being approximately 35 MOA targets. As they get more confidant, then they can start pushing distance. I don't recommend pushing speed that early but should you choose to integrate a time standard to add stress keep the time standards generous as just having a par time alone will typically generate enough stress.
  • Limit the amount of guns you bring out. Beside the logistical difficulty on your part, a big part of developing shooters is letting them discover what a correct sight picture looks like, what a correct trigger press looks like, and so on and so forth. By running things 'carnival style' you are essentially restarting the learning process every time you change platforms. By all means, start them with a .22 then move to centerfire if they're ready, but don't try to switch things up every string. If they're just there to have fun rather then to learn, then do whatever.
  • Understand that adult learning is different from how we were taught in school. Involve your students in the process, ask them questions and if they give an answer have them explain it. Someone with a better educational background then I do can chime in but the idea is that adults learn by discovering things on there own. Try to relate new concepts to stuff they already know. For example, I'll frequent relate shooting to tool use when helping a tradesperson.
  • Use your background to provide context but don't speculate on things you don't have personal experience in. If you've only cleared rooms in CoD, you probably shouldn't be talking about the best way to pie a corner.

If becoming an instructor is a path you want to go down, I'd seek out a reputable instructor in the area and ask to mentor under them. Start taking classes in the area and show that you're willing to put in the work. If they like what they see and you have a positive reputation in the community they may invite you into the fold.

Jun 3, 2011

A flat trigger allows for greater leverage to be applied during manipulation. This allows a trigger to feel lighter without reducing actual trigger weight. The downside is due a less tactile reference points that they can be much more sensitive to where you place your finger, which can result in more horizontal stringing.

It's largely personal preference. I can't stand them personally, but I know plenty of other shooters who get good results with them.

Jun 3, 2011

Internet Wizard posted:

No. You just won't see the dot until you get the gun pointed in the right direction. It's a training thing and you WILL need to practice your draw a lot more than with irons.

Using irons in addition to an optic is a crutch that lets you get away with lazy technique and bad training.

Flashy irons in the optic's picture will also clutter up and distract your sight picture. There is some benefit to having irons on a defensive gun with an optic in the case of failure, but you'd want those irons to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Agreed. People 'fish' for the dot because their presentation is subpar. Irons will let you get away with poor technique, but a RDS will tell you if you gently caress up.

Jun 3, 2011

A Loud Fart posted:

A follow up and a couple questions.

Some dealers on gunbroker will sell you a firearm without the magazine, if you live in a state with restrictions. I used the 'Ask a question' link on a few listings to inquire. I got no response from some, "We only sell with the high capacity magazine included" from others, and finally a "Yes, if you purchase this rifle we will ship it without the magazine". For pistols, I haven't received a single response.

I'm looking at Reflex sights, and there are lots of them at a variety of prices. No mount, thumb screw, ACOG, Weaver, Flat top, throw lever. So, uh, what type do you put on an AR-15? If you buy a no mount, is there an assumption you already own a Trijicon scope and you're changing hardware, or are 3rd party mounts available? The website notes that there is a distance of 1.5 inches from the 'top of the rail' to the center of the sight. Can you adjust a Reflex sight or do you compensate for it's height?

I'm going to assume you are referring to some form of red dot sighting system.

Most optics will be designed for a picatinny rail (pic rail). This is the attachment method used by the DoD and thus the most prevalent. Weaver is similar rail system and may work with pic rails but not necessarily the reverse.

Mounts connect the optic to the rail. A lot of optics have a no mount option to be little cheaper with the assumption that the buyer already has a preferred mounting set up in hand. If this is your first AR, I'd recommend something designed for ARs like the Vortex Sparc II, Holosun 403/503, or one of the Primary Arms red dots. If this is for a serious home defense or training setup, you might want to go with something like an Aimpoint T1/T2 for the increased durability.

Don't worry to much about mount height in the beginning, just know that no matter what you'll have to adjust and hold over the target at close range unless your doing something weird like a 7 yard zero. Anywhere from 1.5-2.0" is reasonable and the difference is largely splitting hairs for a newer shooter.


DA/SA vs striker fired pistols. Big ol' 5" barrel, no compacts. Is there a preference between the two for a new owner who wants to learn to shoot, and do it well? I went to a rental range last year and liked the CZ-75 and Sig 226, but the Glock G17was meh, and the Springfield XD was . I prefer the hammer fired pistols, but am open to an suggestions for striker fired.

I started on DA/SA and moved to strikers as time went on and I feel it's largely personal preference. Trigger control is one of the hardest things to learn when it comes to shooting and DA/SA guns do require learning two trigger pulls as opposed to striker's single one. It certainly can be done, as expert shooters like Ernest Langdon and Mike Pannone can attest, but it does require dedication. DA/SA can also called a 'thinking trigger'. The increased time required to break the shot means more time to process the information in front of you which may result in you being more deliberate in your shooting.

MantisClaw fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 16, 2020

Jun 3, 2011

The Rat posted:

Disagree. You will shoot to your best potential if you are shooting both eyes open, off of your dominant eye. Closing one eye strains the muscles in the other and can decrease that eye's focusing resolution.

Why? What makes eye dominance have a greater effect on shooting rather then hand dominance given that we naturally select our more dominant hand for any task requiring fine motor control (see writing)? Provided of course, that the brain isn't fighting over what image it wants to use.

I agree that both eyes open is preferred if possible, but that's not always the case.

Nitrousoxide posted:

Given that it's a toss-up as to which eye is dominant when I go to look through iron sights what do I do?

I've tried using my left and right side as the primary controlling hand. Whichever one I choose when I go to look through the sights it's about a 50-50 chance that the further out I will be the dominant one when I go to look through the sights.

I've been trying to close one as I line up the sights, then opening it. That seems to make it somewhat more reliable to keep that eye as the dominant one after I open it. But I still have to concentrate to try and keep my vision focused out of the right (or left) eye.

I would pick a side and stick with it. Use painters tape or something similar on your shooting glasses and use that to block the vision of the non gun eye and then do poo poo ton of practice bringing the gun up on target. Overtime you're brain will associate using that eye with mounting the gun and start switching on its own. Essentially making those occluders that Parts Kit is talking about,

You can also work on developing eye muscles by closing your nongun eye and then reading a page from the newpaper or something equivalent length. Keep in mind that all of this takes time to develop and you'll need to put in the work.

Jun 3, 2011

NickBlasta posted:

The impression that I've gotten from literature and from experience is that hand preference is far more ingrained (and possibly mechanical) than eye preference. The brain just gets used to primarily selecting whichever of your eyes is better, so the preference can change as your eyes age. You can overcome the eye preference with practice (ie taping over your left eye) to train it into preferring the right eye. It's also easier if you can get your weak eye corrected to match your strong eye. You can't usually train out of hand preference.

This has been my experience as well. Then again you occasionally run into oddballs no matter what. I once saw someone who was left eye dominant and left handed come to the conclusion that right hand/right eye was the best solution for them. I have no loving clue how that works.

Jun 3, 2011

Kommienzuspadt posted:

I would just get gun oil and a bunch of shop rags than off the shelf gun wipes. Much cheaper.

IMO a cleaning kit should contain:

1. Some kind of bore brush/rod/etc system to clean barrel and chamber. +/- bore snake (one ea. per caliber you own)
2. bore solvent (hoppes #9 etc)
3. Lubricant ( i like slip2000) +/- grease (lithium is good)
4. Brake cleaner
5. Old toothbrush
6. Old dental pick/other device for caked carbon
7. Shop rags

That will do like 90% of what most people need.

Really, most modern firearms need only very occasional basic cleaning, particularly ARs/AKs/ most reputable modern carry & service pistols. Most designs will be able to go thousands o f rounds without significant cleaning as long as they are properly lubricated. This doesn't hold true with all firearms of course (revolvers come to mind as being uniquely sensitive to fouling).

QFT. Most of my gun cleaning follows this to a 'T'. Not that I ever clean my guns except to check for surface rust.

Jun 3, 2011

moths posted:

And I'll definitely work on my stance at home first, with an eye towards direction while I'm handling it. It sounds like I'll need to be extra mindful until the safe handling comes naturally. (And mindful afterwards, naturally.) Should I grab some snap caps for dry fire practice?

The easiest way to think about this is to move yourself around the gun, not the gun around you.

The quickest way to get good at pistol shooting once you're comfortable with the safe handling aspect is to learn how to grip the gun (e: fb). A good grip will help you overcome a lot of newbie issues to begin with and is no joke, the key to fast and accurate pistol shooting.

Once you can grip the pistol effectively, trigger control is usually the next step. This can be defined as the skill necessary to press the trigger to the rear with ZERO movement of the sights. Any movement in the sights, no matter how small will translate into significant deviation at distance, especially with pistols. There's a couple of different methodologies employed so experiment and figure out which works best for you. If one technique causes less movement then the other, that's called a clue.

moths posted:

Should I grab some snap caps for dry fire practice?

You can. Snaps are good for practicing loading and unloading the firearm but I know nothing about milsurp so I'm not sure how good they are for dryfire in that context. I know I don't bother with my more modern guns.

Have fun and ask questions if you don't understand a concept and crosscheck your sources. Just because some random dude on a youtube vid said it, doesn't always make it true.

Anonymous Robot posted:

Maintain a slight bend in your elbows and engage as many muscle groups as possible by “pushing” with your main hand and “pulling” with your support hand.

That's interesting, I haven't heard someone advocate for isometric tension when shooting handgun for a long time. Was this something they went over in your last pistol class? I'm curious if it's making a comeback in the training circles.

MantisClaw fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 21, 2020

Jun 3, 2011

Anonymous Robot posted:

No! I picked this up self-teaching online or something; I thought to ask about it during instruction but didnít find the appropriate time. Is it considered an outdated technique? Iíve found it to be an intuitive and effective way to think about keeping a tight grip.

It can be. I mean if it works for you, it works and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong.

Most people these days teach the thumbs forward grip linked above because it tends to be more intuitive to a broader audience. Where push/pull tends to fail is that people overthink how much pressure is needed for each hand (60/40, 80/20, 70/30 and so on) where the modern power isosceles can be summed up as 'Gun no move, smash gun.'

Ultimately, are you meeting the standards you or others have set for yourself? If not, it may be worth experimenting with a different technique.

Jun 3, 2011

Anonymous Robot posted:

What do yíall use for dry fire practice? Iíve been putting a regular range target on my wall and drawing from holster into dry fire, but Iím curious to hear what other people do.

Iím especially curious what people with striker fired pistols do. I have always used a DA revolver, so dry fire training is no problem, but I have a DA/SA pistol now, and I donít see how one can dry fire train that without creating bad trigger habits. I donít know how you would work a striker-fired pistol without racking the slide every time you squeeze the trigger! Is that Mantis gadget the only game in town?

Define bad trigger habits?

People in the gun world have a habit of trying to make everything as 'realistic' as possible when that's not how any other athletic event practices.
To use fencing as an example, rather then suit up and bout at full speed at the start every session you'll instead see specific skills being practiced. Footwork drills, distance drills, specific bladework (parries, beats, disengages, etc), and finally at the end opposed bouts against a resisting opponent to verify the above skills.

I approach my dryfire the same way. I will focus on trigger control as one drill, shooting multiple shots as another, and so on for transitions, holster work, reloads, etc. Not saying that you shouldn't combine stuff together (you should) but trying to do too much as once means it's hard to determine what's going wrong.

To use String 1 of the July Match thread as an example, it can be broken down into several micro drills:

Draw, 3 shots to 6Ē circle
1. Draw and dryfire in under 1.5 sec
2. Dryfire press in under .25 sec
3. 3 dryfire presses in under .75 sec. Reseting the trigger is not important here as we are focused on the timing aspect then pure trigger control (that's was the previous practice was for)

Slide lock reload, 2 shots to 4Ēx2Ē rectangle
1. Start on target with slide locked back, reload and dryfire press at the end in under 2 sec. Snap caps are optional to ensure proper technique during the reload.
2. Dryfire press in under .5 sec
3. 2 dryfire presses in under 1 sec. (See above for why reset is not an issue for this part)

If you can do all of the above it puts your total time for the drill at :
1.5 Draw
.25 Split
.25 Split
2 Reload
.5 split
Which adds up to 4.5 sec with .5 wiggle room.

You can now put everything together and run the whole drill and see where you're lacking. Using that data you can then go back to that specific microdrill and hammer the poo poo out of it.
For a DA/SA gun, you can either work everything in DA mode (which will be harder but practices the IMO more important DA shot) or you can keep the hammer back as trillhouse does for SA practice.

Jun 3, 2011

Loan Dusty Road posted:

Mantis, what are your thoughts on firing pin activated laser cartridges for dry fire?

I personally haven't found one that works well for me. My biggest issue with lasers is that I have a tendency to get hyper focused on the laser which distracts me from my sights and encourages 'prairie dogging' (aka checking your work or lack of followthrough). If your timing's good it may not be an issue, but I doubt most people are at that level of skill. If you're running a pistol RDS and are already shooting target focused, then ignore the above. Also this a personal problem and not a black mark against the product. I've heard the same thing happens with the MantisX options. People won't learn to truly read their sights and instead rely on the device when shot calling is probably the most important skill in self diagnosing your own shooting. In the end if the tool gets to you practice and you have the discipline to use it to support rather then replace your abilities, I don't think it will hurt.

Typically when I'm working one on one, I spend a good chunk of time just showing them how read sights.

::edit:: Probably should refresh before posting

Anonymous Robot posted:

Thank you for that writeup. For the timed drills, I assume you would use a shot clock and itís able to pick up a dryfire press? Iíve never worked with a clock before, because I am usually shooting on a crowded range where I just assumed it wouldnít function.

Regarding ďbad trigger habits,Ē Iím concerned that working the DA press (which I agree is way more important to practice) in succession will train me in a way that causes me to either be ďsurprisedĒ by a SA shot (though I guess they say thatís a good thing, huh?) or worse, over-release the trigger when the reset is actually quite short. I suppose that might be splitting hairs.

I just use a par setting since most timers won't pick up dryfire or worse will pick up a bunch of false positives.
Ultimately trigger control boils down to 'Did the sights move before your broke the shot'. If you want to practice DA to SA transitions, the best thing I can think of is running something like a 1+0 drill if you trying to save ammo. As far as over-releasing trigger, IMO it's greatly over exaggerated on the internet. When I'm pushing speed, I'm mainly focused on tracking the sights and timing the followup shots, reset isn't even on my mind.

To quote our resident pistol expert:

NickBlasta posted:

I'm also a trigger slapper lol

If you really want to understand your trigger, practice SHO and WHO. Without the support hand, it's much harder to use grip to hide your mistakes and that's why it's part of String 2 and 3 of the match thread.

MantisClaw fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 25, 2020


Jun 3, 2011

MazeOfTzeentch posted:

The more I dry fire, the more I realize all the extra little tools are gimmicky ways to spend your money when you should be buying dummy rounds to properly weight your magazines and gun, a shot timer, and Steve Anderson's book.

This. If you're willing to spend money to get better dryfire results, spend it on a timer first.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply