PDA

View Full Version : I can't believe I'm doing this, but...


Tamara
October 25, 2004, 11:24 PM
...I'm going to publically disagree with *gulp* Pat Rogers.

Pat brought up a point in an article in the 12/04 issue of SWAT that set off something that's been a slow-simmer issue with me for a year or two now.

It started with the "no-snag" sights that are de rigeur on custom 1911's for several years now, all the various versions of Heinies and Novaks and whatnot. Why are all these sights backwards? They're all aerodynamic from the wrong end, and I couldn't figure that out until a friend who'd just returned from an advanced Pistol Skul commented on how the standard sights on his older Springer tore hell out of his hand when they were doing clearance drills on FTE's. Over and over and over and over again. Well, that's fantastic: Novaks will definitely keep you from drawing blood on your fifteenth stovepipe clearance drill, but they're worse than useless if you need to rack the slide of your sidearm on your belt because your non-dominant hand is full of screaming kid or has a big ol' bullet hole in it. "No-snag" sights are, therefore, great for Gun Camp, but lose some functionality in the Real World.

What brought this to the surface was that, in the December article on the Hilton Yam custom 1911's, Pat was teeing off on checkering on a 1911 frontstrap, pooh-poohing it as a cosmetic froofraw that would chew your hand to bloody rags in a high-round-count course at Gunsite or Thunder Ranch. No doubt it will, but I don't like 20-lpi checkering for the way it looks or for how comfy it is in my hand at gun camp, I like it for the way it locks my pistol into my hand if I have to draw it under panic-sweat-less-than-optimum conditions. Should I wind up going to gun skul, I'll bring a couple of non-checkered 1911's to help keep my hand from getting ripped to shreds while shooting a couple of cases of ammo in three days, but should I need to draw down in an alley, I'll take the gun that won't shift in my grip without tearing skin loose, thanks. I've no doubt it would hurt after a several day school, but it's quite tolerable in my nightly presentation drills and weekly courses of fire, and I sincerely believe it would be preferable should I ever have to (Vishnu forbid) use the gun for real.

All this being said: If it's my money paying for checkering, looks are secondary. What I prefer is really coarse and sharp 20lpi stuff that will definitely abrade the skin off your hand (especially if you have no shooting callous) over a long day's course of fire. Next would be skateboard tape or various types of scalloping or stippling. Last would be 30lpi checkering, which I find to be more cosmetic than anything else.


Disclaimer: This is just some chick's opinion. I have never slain tangos or gone through the door or anything like that, so I might well be talking completely out my arse. I await discussion on these points. :o

tc300mag1
October 25, 2004, 11:49 PM
Wow someone speaks out on this trend ... I appluade (sp bad spelling tonight for sure ) you on this and i agree while i wouldnt want rough checkering and such for a class.

But i sure would on a carry gun for grip retention and as said on the sights a way to cock the gun is one had is wiped out .. Course i also havnt been jumping though windows shooting it out in detroit etc etc

But i agree with ya As this makes more sense to me..

Tim L
October 26, 2004, 01:15 AM
Tamara,

There are options for cycling the slide one handed on a belt or other surface in the event of an emergency. Some advocate hooking the rear sight on the belt, heel, or other hard surface as you describe. Another method is to simply use the front sight blade to accomplish the same task. The most universal method is to simply use an edge of the ejection port.

As for checkering, that is the beauty of the 1911: everyone can have it their way. I am currently using a 20lpi checkered pistol on duty while my regular duty gun, with front and backstrap scallops, is having a Dawson rail installed. I find no functional difference in traction between the two textures, and the scallops are indeed easier on the hand. (Both were built by Hilton Yam, have endured high round counts, and are utterly reliable.)

Respectfully,

Tim

Pat Rogers
October 26, 2004, 09:07 AM
Hi Tamara,
Disagree- it's a good thing.

I'll stand my ground on my opinions- else why have them.
While i agree that you can get by with sharp edges for short periods, how do we get the skill set necessary to save your life. An option would be a near mirror image gun. sans checkering- but expensive.
Again- based on seeing hundreds of shooters with moleskin, riggers tape, gloves and so forth on their paws, and observing that learning and pain are mutually exclusive, i'll consider checkering not something that i could vere recommend.
I do like the Chuck Rogers golf balls, as they don't abrade as much and therefore provide the gripping surface that some feel is necessary.

As for one hand cycling- Tim hit the nail on the head. We use the ejection port for this if necessary, but applying pressure against any sight will allow you to cycle the slide.
I know of some who mod their Novak's to make a more vertical surface and allegedly make this possible, but scores of Marines (and others) are doing it- and have been doing it, for a long time. There is no problem in the real real world. We do it all the time.
In short, this is a non issue.

I've been carrying a gun for almost all of my life. I'll mirror Hilton when he states that he has become sensitive to carry issues. Sights, hammers and checkering all work on clothing and skin. If your favorite blaster chews through the lining of your Sunday go to school jacket- how long will you actually carry thay piece?

We are all slaves to our frame of reference, and mine may be different than yours, and that may be different from Tim's and so forth.
What is good for you may flat be terrible for someone else.
I don't like checkering- but Tim does. Is either of us more (or less) correct?

Get the best possible equipment that you can. Then seek the best training available.
And when you are finished, train some more.

Denny Hansen
October 26, 2004, 10:27 AM
My primary pistol has seen so many presentations that the sides of the slide and the frontstrap look as though they have nickel plating. Still don't have a problem getting a good grip. IMO the stocks are what need the texturing, not the frontstrap. Never could understand those beautiful, highly polished stocks on a carry gun.

I use the ejection port, not the sights to clear a malfunction. As a side note, I was admonished in one class to not use the port. The instructor explained that "most folks will still have their finger in the trigger guard and will shoot themselves if they clear using the ejection port." Riiiiiight!

Just .02 from a high-drag, low-speed kind of guy.

Denny

Jeff Gonzales
October 26, 2004, 06:57 PM
Pat, I love you like the angry Irish step father I never had, but I dislike the snag free sights for the reasons explained regarding strong/weak hand only manipulations. While I know that folks can do it, it is my experience that they don't seem to do it consistently. I look at gear that enhances combat efficiency and not reduces it. If I can make the snag free sights snag on everything possible while maintaining the same attributes of a good sight then it is a win/win.

We have worked with Novak sights to produce our version of a snag sight, it is made from the Low Mount sight where the top is cut back and under up to the tritium vials. It provides an excellent surface to grip just about any surface space available.

I am not about to dispute the ability of the Marines to manipulate the handguns with the snag free sights, but I will contest that in their case concealability is less of an issue than combat effectiveness. That being the case, I would request how well they can do the clearance techniques on the move.

Here is the reason why I ask. Our Strong Hand Only program came from me and a few other having to create a program for team mates who were injured in training accidents and lost extremities. Together we learned more about Strong Hand Only shooting. It was then that I created the program we have currently. In the process these guys wouldn't settle for anything less than realistic techniques. Our barometer for success was can we consistently do the techniques while on the move. Our rational for this concept was we were already injured any technique that grounds or limits mobility is immediately discarded. Once injured the best weapon available is the ability to move. We were able to really see what works and what seems to work. When working with snag free sights it was agreed they were not sufficient for their usage. So, if the argument centered around using them in a strong/weak hand only format they really performed poorly.

To summarize, our thinking is can we consistently do the technique and then can we consistently do the technique while on the move. I am sure that folks can replicate the technique on a square range, but have them move and try to fix it. I think anything that can enhance the effectiveness is worth pursuing. The cut-back sights definitely do it and I have been carrying mine for over a year concealed and haven’t had any problems regarding the shreding of my garments.

The only issue that has not been addressed is the damaged caused during training. Like Pat, I have seen lots of folks bandaged up during class. This is a real issue, but the wounds obtained in training heal and while that is not much consolation I think it is better than the alternative.

V/R,

Pat Rogers
October 27, 2004, 08:26 AM
Angry??? Intense maybe..
We have been running malfuncion drills on the move for a long time. Like you and others the understanding of the dynamic of fighting dictate the drills necessary to provide the skill sets to win the fight.

We run the pistol off the arm hole of the vest. It had been sufficiently consistent with out shooters.
As a side note, they were the ones who requested the Novak sights over the PWS made one.

When we looked at the time available for the shooting, and what skills were actually required, we had to look hard at the circumstances that would require (for example) a weak hand only Type 3 clearence.
Those circumstances would require a lot of stars to be out of alignment for that to occur. While teaching both weak and strong hand malfunction drills with the pistol are taught, there are other skill sets that require more attention.
On the non mil side, i would venture that 90% of those on any forum are in the debit side when it comes to basic gun handling, and certainly fighting. This can translate to any classes taught, and while there are exceptions, 3-5 days on a range does not a gunfighter make.
The fact that once one leaves a class the sustainment training necessary to slow the degradation of skills starts down the slippery slope.
Consequently those strong/ weak hand drills, especially related to malfunctions also fall by the wayside.

If one sight works better for someone, i am all for it.

I still don't like checkering. I have never found that useful, and only aggravating when someone cannot perform due to pain.

But hey, wadda' i know?

Jeff Gonzales
October 27, 2004, 08:42 AM
Pat,

Intensity is a better word, but it doesn't allow me to make a cool acronym...AISF :D

The vest hole is a great idea and I am confident there would be no problems working through any problems with a solid and ambidextrous location.

I really like the Novak sights and am glad they went with them. The sights were nothing more than me dissappointed with the inconsistency we got with them, which is why we cut them back. Since then I have felt like I got to have my cake and eat it too.

Checkering is one of those things that I haven't taken sides with yet. There are days when I am grateful for them and then there are days when I am cursing them. The good news is now there are options for folks to choose from that can hopefully meet everyone's personality.

As for your last comment, more than me...

Later,

OBIWAN
October 27, 2004, 03:46 PM
Wow....you guys could give lessons on internet civility...(I mean that)

There will be no living with Tamara now!.... (that was a joke!)

I don't feel qualified to comment except to say that I am really fond of the scallops on my STI guns...very secure and not abusive/abrasive...

Similar to the Golf Balls Pat mentioned..I believe

Tamara
October 27, 2004, 10:14 PM
An option would be a near mirror image gun. sans checkering- but expensive.

Granted, I'm probably coming at this from the standpoint of an "embarrassment of riches." I have enough 1911's that I can leave a couple of them with un-checkered/-textured frontstraps so that I have guns on call for high round-count intensive shooting courses. Still and all, the point I'm questioning is this: Is it efficient to have your gun set up to avoid pain in super-high-round-count training courses, even if it doesn't cause hand trauma in daily training/matches/local one day workshops? What if the modifications made to accommodate the special conditions of Gunsite 250 make the sidearm less efficient for the shooter in question should they have to use it in Dark Parking Lot 101? Understand that I'm not trying to make definitive statements, but just tossing out musings...

On the sights issue...

I've tinkered with using the front sight and the ejection port, as well as using alternate striking surfaces for cocking. It's probably more a condemnation of my level of physical coordination than it is of the techniques, but the rear sight (on a gun so set up; read: "Trijicons") worked against the mouth of a rigid holster seems to me to be the way for me, personally, to go. Being Suzy Civilian, I can't always use the "arm hole of the vest" since I may not be wearing a vest, or one with an armhole rigid enough to use for cocking, but I'll always have A) My holster, or B) A boot heel. (Ideally, I'd use "C) The nearest doorframe, table edge, or corner" since I relocated the dang FLGR to "D) The trash can." :D )

Anyhow, thanks for more to think about. I'll give the ejection port technique another whirl, as mastering that would probably be cheaper than milling the rears on all my guns that have aerodynamic sights. Any pointers on orienting the gun or where on the belt to pop the ejection port that can be described without pictures? Or do I need to find out your training schedule? (Please don't throw me in that briar patch. :cool: )

KSFreeman
October 28, 2004, 09:54 AM
Never had a problem, but then for fun I beat up sand bags, chunks of wood and have people beat on my arms and legs. (Sand bag conditioning are the only fights I can win--no hitting back! :D) Makes sense to me that as with any "art" physical conditioning must be an element of the overall picture.

Tam, why does it have to be the belt? The thigh and the ribs work and I have swoopy sights, even works in the buff. :D

Pat Rogers
October 31, 2004, 04:37 PM
Obiwan,
Civility is reserved for those who deserve it. Generally speaking, my pesonality is blunt (how's that Jeff?), and patience is something in the ether along with wave propogation.
However, Jeff is a friend, and i respect his talent and ability, so why bother rolling around on the floor with a buddy over TTP's?
The disinformation cowpath is full of bump fire bozo's and gunshop professors (which is why i seldom post...) who can wail and cast their limpid eyes skyward while fantasizing about airsoft babes and computer games.
I have a life (which is kinda' busy right now) so civility is easy- in this case.

Tamara,
Finger straight! Try rotating the pistol inward (that is, so the top of the gun) is toward your body. Angle the muzzle slightly away (finger straight) and attempt to catch the rear of the ejection port against the desired target. You body type, wardrobe etc will all be a determining factor on how this works.

You apparently shoot, so TTP like this will benefit you. Others who struggle to perform a reload and get a decisive hit will probably be frustrated.
More frustrated if they are airsoft bubba's.

IamNOTaNUT
November 5, 2004, 03:54 PM
I'll throw one other situation out there, no disrespect intended to our learned colleagues.

Some of us carry a firearm on duty that will not allow the use of the ejection port for a clearance drill. To keep as much of the training transferrable to the 1911 platrorm as possible, I use my sights for one handed drills for whatever semi-auto I may go armed with.

BTW, I've never played with an airsoft. ;)

trapshooter
November 7, 2004, 08:39 AM
Just for the heck of it...

When I decided to 'build' a 1911, I couldn't decide if I wanted the checkering or not. During one of my design sessions with a Brownells catalog, I discovered the 'fake' checkering thing that (IIRC) Wilson Combat makes. Basically, a very thin metal strap, checkered, that you can put on under the grips that emulates a checkered FS. A way to try it without the expense of doing it to the gun, and is reversible, if you decide that you don't like it.

This is not something I would advocate for a (semi-)permanent installation, as it could be easily damaged by real-world use, but it did save me a bunch of money and a frame, in the end. If you find you like the checkering, then you spend the money. If not, the thing comes off and you are back to the original in the same amount of time it takes to change the grips.

I guess you could put it on for range work, and take it off for carry, but this doesn't seem to make a bunch of sense to me. TEHO.

Checked the records and found this in my Brownells file:

Stock # - 965-100-001, #100B Checkered Front Strap, Blue. $8.95.

I just went to Brownells. Yep, Wilson Combat, and they still offer it in Blue or SS. Now it's $9.95. Inflation, I guess. Still a throw-away.

CAGoatee
December 2, 2004, 09:36 PM
...I'm going to publically disagree with *gulp* Pat Rogers.

Pat brought up a point in an article in the 12/04 issue of SWAT that set off something that's been a slow-simmer issue with me for a year or two now.

It started with the "no-snag" sights that are de rigeur on custom 1911's for several years now, all the various versions of Heinies and Novaks and whatnot. Why are all these sights backwards?
Kudos Tamara! Not to knock an acknowledged, and respected, expert's opinion at all... But regarding the shape of the front of a combat pistol's rear sight, you raise a very valid question.

As Tamara pointed out, if the front side of that rear blade is flat; or has some sort of feature that is blunt enough to easily snag something (there are brands of excellent after-market sights that are designed this way), then you can at least try to catch it on your belt and/or the corner/edge of one of your pants pockets for example; or some other nearby object, and rack the slide. It may work, and it may not - at that moment - but at least you have that option available to you.

Tim L mentioned some alternate techniques: (1) Use the edge of the ejection port. Yes, that is a good idea, but not all ejection ports have square, notched, and/or very snagible (sp?) edges. (2) Using your front sight. Another valid suggestion; especially if you are hunkered down, but try doing that while moving, shooting and scooting, or running for cover (in a real-life stress situation)? Much more difficult!

Jeff Gonsales, another acknowledged expert, also weighed in to support Tamara's line of questioning/thought as well.

I noticed in one of Pat Roger's rebuttals, that he said something along the lines that, the techniques he's describing do not apply to over 90% of the people who read this stuff, and he's right! Alhough, I'd take that one step further by stating, that the hook your sloped and rounded rear sight on the armhole of an external ballistic vest technique, also does NOT apply to the vast majority of uniformed LEO's in the U.S., who wear their vests underneath their uniforms.

If LAPD/LAPD SWAT (or anyone else) likes their sloped rear-sighted Kimbers; and can consistently rack that piece one-handed under stress, then all power/blessings to them. However, their rival, the mean, lean, Tan & Green Machine, aka: the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, (LASD), wants nothing to do with such gun sights. And neither do their special weapons and tactics team (S.E.B.), nor their undercover units, Detective Bureau, Patrol, nor any other of the various units in that agency (as per departmental policy).

I like options, and reducing one of them, by installing slippery slope rear sights; when there are other excellent sights available that will get the job done, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. However, catching a nice chunky rear sight, with nice rounded non-gotcha-during-training-corners, is way easier/faster; as trapshooter pointed out, than trying to snag an ejection port, for example. I am not knocking the later procedure, or Tim L either, (as it is another valid technique to put in your tool box).

As all of us are quite aware, it is extremely important that we continue to think ahead, and play 'what if games'; before the shtf, and give ourselves as many options as practical. I am very grateful for this forum (new member), and have forgotten many things over the years. I personally appreciated the valuable dialogue that this topic generated!

Parting Thought: Most of us are cognizant of the fact, that the original Colt automatic pistols (M1911 & 1911A1) were designed specifically for the military, and were G.I. with flat bladed rear sights. It's not mere coincidence, that many of today's modern pistols; that are also designed for military and/or law enforcement, also come with similar rear sights too (excluding Kimber, and/or other manufacturers like them, who are trying to garner a larger market share of the Colt 1911 clone market).

Happy Holidays to all, and stay safe! :)


PS: If it were not for the so-called, "bump fire bozo's et al", or other armchair wannabe warriors, then I would dare say, that the publishers of "S.W.A.T. Magazine", would not be generating the sales that they currently, or previously enjoyed! And what in heaven's name, has an article like, "The Cane vs. The Knife: Simple Walking Stick or Serious Sell-Defense (sic)?", got to do with any U.S. law enforcement agency's authorized SWAT team tactics??? Or have things changed that much in the last 3 years since I retired? :rolleyes:

Deputy Donald B., LASD (Retired)

SA Scott
December 3, 2004, 12:00 PM
I feel out of my depth posting in this company, but here goes. I have Trijicon sights on my primary carry pistol. I find that this resolves both poles of the discussion. The sights have never snagged during presentation/manipulation, but give the flexibility of one-handed clearance as a gross motor function. In addition, I get a good sight picture. I don't like the way they look, lacking the "cool" appearance which I really do appreciate in Novak/Heinie, etc. But I'm comforted by their functionality and continue to resist the urge to change them.

As a counterpoint, I've sought out alternatives to traditional front strap checkering, from grip tape to rubber to less aggressive stippling. We are fortunate in having the luxury of discussing alternatives which meet our individual needs.

SA Scott

PaleRyder
December 3, 2004, 12:52 PM
Hello folks. I have a question [excuse my ignorance]:
In a danger situation, if you're carrying a 1911, why isn't it cocked and locked, rather than having to rack it one handed?

Rosco Benson
December 3, 2004, 12:56 PM
Pat alluded to this earlier, in noting that one could have
two pistols...identical except one being checkered...to
permit one to have a checkered carry gun and a smooth
"school" pistol. This is a good plan, in that it provides one
an excuse to buy another pistol :). Seriously though, the
degree to which one's hands suffer from checkering is
different when firing, say, 1500 rounds over 5 days versus
firing 100 once a week in skill-maintenance drills. Both are
different than a less-than-a-full-magazine usage to save
one's life on the street.

IMO, checkering offers some advantages in the last two
scenarios, related to offering a secure grip. It becomes a
nuisance only when shooting a high round round over a
short time, as in attending a shooting school. Perhaps this
is a case wherein the notion of (very slightly) different tools
for different jobs applies.

I think any experienced practical pistol shooter would agree
that--checkered or not--the pistol needs to be well-dehorned
and devoid of sharp sight blades, pointy safety levers, and other
edges that cut and abrade hands, holsters, and clothing. There
are also other forms of texturing that can be applied to the pistol's
butt--stippling, serrations, "scallops", even skateboard tape--that
vary in their degree of abrasiveness.

Lastly, bear in mind that a textured frontstrap can be covered with
rubber wrap-around stocks if a marathon shooting session is
anticipated.

pax
December 3, 2004, 12:59 PM
PaleRyder ~

They're talking about worst case scenarios: you got shot or otherwise injured one hand, and you had a jam or simply needed to reload.

pax

Denny Hansen
December 3, 2004, 01:00 PM
PaleRyder-
You're correct that a 1911 should start off in Condition One. This thread is discussing how to perform malfunction drills with one hand if things go South.

Denny

PaleRyder
December 3, 2004, 01:25 PM
Thanks for clarifying. All I had to do was think about it for a second and realize of course that would be what was being discussed.

trapshooter
December 4, 2004, 09:01 AM
It doesn't look like there is any disagreement about being able to do one-handed racks. And normally the easiest way to do that is by using the rear sight. Seems like the folks who make and sell sights could come up with a rear sight design that is 'smooth', but accomodates this ability. Maybe not. I'm not a design guy, after all. And it's a sure thing that somebody wouldn't like it. ;)

On the other hand, real world, if I thought I might get into a gunfight and I didn't/couldn't have a rifle, I think I'd just be ready to do a New York reload with a wheelie or something. Which is one advantage of that design in this respect. (One-handed operation, that is). But this plan requires twofers with a wheel gun BUG, which isn't always an option. One still needs to practice and train for all eventualities. Unfortunately, Murphy will almost always tap us on the shoulder at the most inappropriate time.

Edited to add:

That got me thinking about what I did on the street way back when. I had a Model 15 duty gun and a Lightweight Commander BUG. Applying my own logic, that should have been reversed. But you do what your agency tells you to. :rolleyes: Besides, I would have had to run out of ammo for the 15 (under most scenarios) before resorting to the Commander. And that (running out of ammo) was a low-probability at the time, ;) because my particular situation made extended fights unlikely, and I carried way more full speedloaders that I thought I might need.

CAGoatee
December 5, 2004, 07:46 PM
If it were not for the so-called, "bump fire bozo's et al", or other armchair wannabe warriors, then I would dare say, that the publishers of "S.W.A.T. Magazine", would not be generating the sales that they currently, or previously enjoyed! And what in heaven's name, has an article like, "The Cane vs. The Knife: Simple Walking Stick or Serious Sell-Defense (sic)?", got to do with any U.S. law enforcement agency's authorized SWAT team tactics??? Or have things changed that much in the last 3 years since I retired? :rolleyes:

Deputy Donald B., LASD (Retired)

Rich Lucibella
December 6, 2004, 11:26 AM
Cag-
Interesting insight, there. I'm not certain how to categorize it....but it is "interesting". :D


I'm certain we have our share of "armchair warriors" and retired types. But I think the content of SWAT, being geared toward Training and Tactics, tends not to be attractive to the Whiz-Bang-New-FireStick-From-Hell crowd.

As to the Cane vs the Knife: I commissioned that one. I carry a cane in venues where I can't carry a gun....highly effective, go-anywhere weapon. Similarly, I'm the one who developed the direction for SWAT. It's evident in our Mission Statement: To promote the responsible use of defensive weapons, tactics and training; to encourage law enforcement and civilian firearms owners to recognize and exploit issues of common ground in our mutual effort to preserve a free and safe society.

Obviously, had I chosen to word that as "U.S. law enforcement agency's authorized SWAT team tactics", we'd be producing a different magazine. Me, I'm proud to be associated with a "serious shooter's" magazine, rather than the "serious shooters who happen to wear badges" variety.

Best regards-
Rich

Handy
December 6, 2004, 12:30 PM
Seems like the crux of this argument is contained in Tamara's statement:It's probably more a condemnation of my level of physical coordination than it is of the techniques, Why limit you're available avenues to perform a clearance drill when the whole idea behind a one handed drill is that you are already physically handicapped?

Pat said the ejection port method would be unusable by 90% of shooters. If only 10% can do it when they're healthy, how many can perform the task while starting to go into shock, or just shaking with adrenaline and fatigue?


If this one handed clearance stuff is actually valuable (how often should a decent combat gun ever jam?), then the drill should be performable by someone NOT at the top of his game. Because someone working with one arm, in a gunfight, probably isn't at the top of theirs.



As an aside, it is always amusing to see how much training infrastructure has evolved to service JUST 1911s. As someone pointed out, the ejection port trick isn't going to work on many guns, including most anything with a modified Browning lockup. And you are only able to use that front sight because no one has yet made an effort to 'Novak' it to match the rear. I was talking to a gent that was having problems in a class locking open his gun to perform a particular clearance drill. Nevermind the fact that gun couldn't jam in the manner the drill taught - so he had to train for the circumstances and methods of a 1911 malf, even though he wasn't going to be using one.

CAGoatee
December 6, 2004, 01:37 PM
The disinformation cowpath is full of bump fire bozo's and gunshop professors (which is why i seldom post...) who can wail and cast their limpid eyes skyward while fantasizing about airsoft babes and computer games.

Rich,

My last post which you found difficult to "categorize", (can't fault you for that), was in reaction to something that Pat Roger's stated earlier (excerpt quoted above). I understand what he is saying, and I also do not enjoy listening to the postulations of the arogantly ignorant either (hence my nomenclature "armchair warriors"); especially when it comes to defensive/offensive tactics, as their "advice", if wrong, could get either themselves - or some other innocent - seriously injured or killed. So, when Pat made his statement about seldom posting, I thought that was sort of strange, when he is affiliated with "S.W.A.T. Magazine", (SM) whose readership base probably includes many of these "bump fire bozos". :rolleyes:

Also, if the magazine was called "American Self-Defense", for example, then that would be more reflective of its actual contents, because it really does not contain, or at least should NOT contain, actual tactics used by law enforcement personnel (as any dirt-bag could either buy a copy at the newsstand; or subscribe, and then be able to kill a cop, or other innocents, using that information). So, if in fact the publishers of SM are not selling actual LE tactics, and they should NOT, then why call it, "S.W.A.T. Magazine"? :confused:

Rich Lucibella
December 6, 2004, 02:17 PM
Cag-
It's called SWAT because that was what Chuck Taylor named it in the early 80's. Just as Soldier of Fortune hardly caters to the Murder-for-Hire group, a magazine called "Special Weapons and Tactics" need not concern itself exclusively with SRT units in the new millennium. It is what we choose it to be; it's named what we choose to name it; it survives or fails on what the public thinks of it.

You are correct that most of SWAT's readers do not carry a badge....including the 30% that wear a military uniform. But I'm still missing your point. Are you suggesting that the ratio of "bump fire bozos" is somehow greater in non-police circles than among those with a badge? If so, I'd really like to know what process of Natural Selection automatically raises a man's intellect upon graduating from the academy and pinning a patch of base metal to his chest?

As to "LE Tactics", there are very few that I consider sacrosanct, especially when so many come originally from the (apparent) dregs of "civilian" marksmanship and training. Husbands and wives should be exposed to Team Tactics. Responsible shooters should know how to clear a corner, reload from cover, shoot from the confines of a drivers seat and disarm an opponent.

I'm not at all worried about the criminal element learning about the "One Secret Police Tactic That Is Certain To Work Under All Circumstances". I'm far more concerned about those on our side of the barricade (in and out of uniform) who believe such tactics exist....or that they can ever take the place of professional training and practice.

Were I to be as concerned as you about feeding valuable info to the bad guys, I'd shut this site down today. There's more practical value to be gleaned from a careful read of these threads than can ever be imparted in a standard Police Academy.

Information isn't the enemy.....people who misuse it are. Lucky for us, most criminals (by nature) are inherently lazy. They simply don't train.
Rich Lucibella
Publisher
S.W.A.T. Magazine

CAGoatee
December 6, 2004, 04:15 PM
As to "LE Tactics", there are very few that I consider sacrosanct, especially when so many come originally from the (apparent) dregs of "civilian" marksmanship and training. Husbands and wives should be exposed to Team Tactics. Responsible shooters should know how to clear a corner, reload from cover, shoot from the confines of a drivers seat and disarm an opponent.

Rich,

I appreciate VERY much your efforts both in print and with TFL, to get valid information out there to those people who neither have combat, nor LE training. Every grunt and cop in the world started out completely ignorant of those tactics until receiving training, and gaining experience. The information in the magazine and here online is invaluable for that.

What I was reacting to, and maybe in hindsight I should have just let it go, were Pat's remarks about "bump fire bozos"; and seldom posting online, when he is a contributer to SM, and these very "bump fire bozos" can - and probably do - read that publication (and therefore are reading all the info that he contributes).

I guess I also reacted, and maybe in hindsight it may not be worth it; or even a good idea, in voicing my opposition to your magazines title. I mean it is NOT a magazine published by, or for, SWAT teams. And in reality, I think that if you are honest with yourself, that you would admit (at least privately) that the use of the title "S.W.A.T. Magazine", is a marketing ploy to generate a wider readership base. In short, you are using the SWAT acronym as a marketing tool.

Like I said earlier, if you had called it, "American Home Defense", for example, that would not bug me at all. Just as it does not bother me that members of your magazine's staff, post information here to counteract all the postulations of the self-proclaimed "experts" (these "Gun Shop Professors" as Pat calls them), who hand out all this bad information that could get a person killed (who doesn't have the proper training and experience). And I applaud your every single effort in that regard!!!

As for the "base metal" that gets pinned on LE academy graduates chests, you are correct that, that piece of 'tin' isn't worth much as a commodity. However that's not what the 'badge' is about. It's a symbol of governmental authority that tells all, that the wearer is authorized; and mandated, to enforce the laws of the Federal, State, County and and/or City governments (and, if the agency is a excellent one, a symbol of pride to the officer wearing it). (Not very many people want to; nor are they qualified to, do that dangerous and often thankless task). And I'm sure you wouldn't scoff at that little trident emblem that Jeff G. used to wear (earned) either.

Lastly, I am very well aware that many firearms skills have been developed, or enhanced by non-sworn members of society (as I once was, and now that I am retired, have returned to that former category). I am very grateful for all the non military and non-LE personnel who developed some of the fine firearms that I used to defend my life with, and the lives of others. I am sorry that my postings, and criticisms, led you to infer that I was somehow denigrating those who were never LEO's. It was NOT my intent whatsoever, to slight any firearms owner/user who neither combat military personnel, nor cops. I am not one of those "jerk" macho cops (or former cops), who look down their noses at people who never had a badge pinned on their chests. As cop, I was willing to lay down my life to maintain order and peace in society. It was my duty, obligation, and job. Nothing more and nothing less.

The best to you and all contributers to your publication, the information is very much needed in these increasingly dangerous times we live in. It's just that I've never liked the title (and that's simply my opinion), and is in NO way a slight to the life-saving information contained within it. :)

Happy Holidays, and stay safe!

Rich Lucibella
December 6, 2004, 04:41 PM
Cag-
No offense taken..or intended. When I spar, it's obvious and usually in-kind. When I "fight", it's never on the public side of this forum....and it's seldom fair. ;)

As to the magazine title, you're ahead of yourself. I didn't create the title...I inherited it. Since it's absolute suicide to change a magazine title after a twenty year run, I think you're hard pressed to accuse me of using it as a "marketing ploy". SWAT was defunct and off the stands when I bought it. I thought it was worth trying to salvage...so did Denny....and Pat....and Jeff. I see no reason to change the title....other than the fact that it sometimes works against us when non-badged readers assume it's only for cops.

We use no "marketing ploys" whatsoever and I do bristle a bit when people make such claims out of ignorance. This is about the most value-oriented, no-BS title in its market....nobody gets rich off of it; some of us have NEVER received a check from it; and NONE of us will accept the term "Gun Rag", "Wannabe" or "Arm Chair Warrior" when it comes to our effort, our staff or our readers. Just as you bristle when someone calls the LASD badge a "piece of base metal", others are proud of their contribution to the fight.....and have every bit as much a right to be.

We on the same page now?

CAGoatee
December 6, 2004, 04:50 PM
Same page. :)

Rich Lucibella
December 6, 2004, 10:47 PM
That said, my apologies for coming out of the blocks as hard as I did.
We're cool. Thanks for your service and continued contribution here.
Rich

Tamara
December 6, 2004, 11:24 PM
Striking surface: Flabby right thigh covered in Gap stone-washed denim jeans, slim fit.

Weapon #1: Springfield Stainless Loaded, bead-blasted finish, Novak sights, factory recoil spring.

Multiple attempts couldn't even get the slide to budge from battery. Ow, my leg! :o

Weapon #2: Old Clackamas Kimber Custom Classic, matte blue finish, CMC sights, original recoil spring.

Despite flinching from already-throbbing leg, managed to get the slide to cycle roughly two out of three tries, thanks to sights catching on outseam of jeans.

Weapon #3: Colt MkIV Series 80 in .38 Super, blued, no-gunsmithing Novaks, original-weight recoil spring.

Sissy recoil spring plus high-drag drop-in Novaks allows slide to cycle every time, since rear sight fouls on jeans seam.

Weapon #4: Springfield Professional, Black-T finish, Novaks, factory serious recoil spring.

You've got to be kidding me. Owww... OW! :o



Conclusions:
I need to work out more to beef up my right thigh. Huge, pistol-shaped goose eggs hurt. CMC sights and "drop in" Novaks are a lot grippier than Novak Lo-Mounts. Gap jeans are slicker than they look. Thank Vishnu I have a belt, a holster, and two boot heels to use as striking surfaces. Pat gave valuable advice, but this is obviously going to take a lot more work... :o

Machinist
December 7, 2004, 08:59 AM
Heine slant pros allow me to do said slide rack. :)
Also checkering does not bother my hands, must be due to machining for the last ten years. Yost is going to stipple the front strap and mainspring housing of the S.A. he is building me and hopefully it will have less wear n tear on my clothes. His rear sight looks like just the ticket to be able to catch on a belt loop etc.

Tamara
December 7, 2004, 10:51 PM
Hrm. I'm sporting a monster Charley Horse on my right thigh now, but I'm going to give this another whirl, this time using my hip on the weak side. Given that the fabric tends to bunch up more there, it may provide a higher coefficient of friction for me to work against, with a commensurately better chance of snagging the ejection port or sights strongly enough to rack the slide. More later...

Handy
December 7, 2004, 11:41 PM
Have you tried using your teeth on the ejection port? :D

Tamara
December 7, 2004, 11:58 PM
Not really, since I'm being serious. :rolleyes:

(Incidentally, not one of the four test weapons mentioned above has ever hiccuped on me even once, except for the Pro, which came with two mags [out of six] that had crapped-out springs. I figure that a weapon's first malf will generally come at the least opportune time, so [paranoiac that I am] I try and be at least a little bit prepared for that inevitable "why'd-it-have-to-happen-now?" screwup. :o )

Handy
December 8, 2004, 12:11 AM
Really? You're seriously rejecting your own preference for high profile sights to satisfy someone elses demonstratably near-impossible slight of hand?

Enjoy your well earned bruises, dear lady.

Tamara
December 8, 2004, 12:25 AM
Actually, it's not so cut and dried.

Personally, I think it'd be swell if all these guns came with Trijicons, but they don't. What I'm looking for is an operable method to cycle them one-handed without having to mill the rear sights. (I'm selectively cheap. :o )

One thing that I've discovered from this whole process is that even the toughest gun to cycle one-handed (the Novak-sighted, teflon-coated, heavily-sprung and tightly locked Pro) is easily popped off against a rubber boot heel. Whoever brought up using a boot heel in this thread, thanks. I don't know why I never thought of that before. :)

1911SFOREVER
December 8, 2004, 04:43 PM
Hmmm. Maybe you cut a Novak shaped notch in your belt? Fitting the sight into the notch should give you enough purchase to rack the slide. Kinda specialized, I know, but it is cheaper than swapping out to Heinie's!

FirstFreedom
December 9, 2004, 06:00 PM
Tam, lemme see if I understand you re the sights. Is this correct:

The ones that you're referring to which are all the rage right now have a vertical "back" and a sloped "front", which is the exact opposite of what you need on BOTH sides, since you'd want a sloped back to aid in a snag-free draw, and a vertical front to get a grip on the top of a belt for an emergency one-hand rack.

Is that it or are you saying something else? Because if that's what you're saying, then of course I agree, and what the heck is the rationale for having the angle wrong on BOTH sides of the sight?

Tamara
December 9, 2004, 11:25 PM
That's what I be sayin'. :o

VaughnT
December 12, 2004, 12:53 PM
Tamara, thanks for bring this point up. For the longest time, I have thought that the Novaks were highly over rated as a combat sight for the same reason you do. First Freedom's design critique is dead on the money.

From my personal experience, the stock mil-spec rear sight of the 1911a1, and the Yost-Bonitz beefier rear sight are ideal. The XS System sight has a more pronounced 'blade' on the rear, but I didn't like the shallow valley notch.

I note that most military pistols have very basic sights, like my BHP and CZ. Even the Grock comes standard with a wedge-type rear. None of these weapons have ever presented a problem when doing one-hand clearance drills. You can catch that sight on a belt, holster, bootheel, seam, pocket, wall, corner, tabletop, whatever.

There is a difference between Positive and Non-Positive. NP doesn't mean that it's a bad thing, just not preferable. Using the ejection port, front sight, or muzzle end to push the slide back - all are workable under certain circumstances, but they offer little in the way of surface area and it would be hard to hit that "sweet spot" when the adrenalin is pumping. They are "Non-Positive" in nature.

The milspec type of rear sight offers a very Positive hook to grab. The majority of them, like on my CZ and BHP, are very large, stand a good bit off of the slide's top, and are beefy enough to take repeated hits in training. Because it's hard to miss that big rear sight, little training is needed and your attire is less of a part of the equation.

When I first learned about the malf drill, I had the stock rear sight on my Colt 1991. The teacher showed me how to do the drill, snagging my sight on my pocket or somewhere on my duty rig. It was a little awkward at first, but I was able to get repeated hits after five minutes and felt confident that I could do this all day long in a fight.

Down the road a bit, I had the same Colt customized my Ted Yost (to include his stippling on the FS, BT speedbump, and MSH) and had him install the uber-cool, Det1 has it, rear sight. After that, I could not snag the rear sight for a clearance. Getting a hook on the ejection port was more of a miss than hit operation.

The same pistol - different rear sight. With the Novak sight, there simply isn't anything to RELIABLY grab hold on. The premise behind the Novak and Heinie sights is that it extends the sight radius. That's it. Yea, they're durable, but so is any other hunk of steel.

Long-winded, but I really wanted to get that off my chest. Thanks for all who listened. Off to the gym.

rkc
December 20, 2004, 06:10 PM
You can also catch edge of the slide to rack the same.
illustrated many years ago by world's fastest man with a
1911, happened to be a Marine I believe

can use front strap from Wilson Combat , just a cover, to discover if you like checkering and compare the two before investing in real deal.

DarkKnight01
December 22, 2004, 03:02 PM
ROFL i couldnt help laughing upon reading this... heh heres a few other ideas i came up with fiddling around with this idea myself it may or may not be less painful... but perhaps more effective...

option #1 grip the slide in the nook of your neck on the side... hmm hard to explain... tilt your head to the side in a manner to grip the weapon and cycle the slide that way... i tried this with my Taurus and it worked... a bit of abrasion on the neck... but its better than having an unloaded gun in a gun fight..

option #2 place the weapon in a similar manner but this time in the nook behind the knee bending the leg to grip the slide in a similar fashion and cycle it that way...

option #3 this one i just thought of on a whim... i tried it again with my taurus and got it to work... i hooked the rear sight on the corner of my rear pocket and got the slide to cycle again...

hehe keep trying.. and be creative theres alot of ways to cycle a slide if the "need to or im dead" situation presents itsself.

Striking surface: Flabby right thigh covered in Gap stone-washed denim jeans, slim fit.

Weapon #1: Springfield Stainless Loaded, bead-blasted finish, Novak sights, factory recoil spring.

Multiple attempts couldn't even get the slide to budge from battery. Ow, my leg!

Weapon #2: Old Clackamas Kimber Custom Classic, matte blue finish, CMC sights, original recoil spring.

Despite flinching from already-throbbing leg, managed to get the slide to cycle roughly two out of three tries, thanks to sights catching on outseam of jeans.

Weapon #3: Colt MkIV Series 80 in .38 Super, blued, no-gunsmithing Novaks, original-weight recoil spring.

Sissy recoil spring plus high-drag drop-in Novaks allows slide to cycle every time, since rear sight fouls on jeans seam.

Weapon #4: Springfield Professional, Black-T finish, Novaks, factory serious recoil spring.

You've got to be kidding me. Owww... OW!



Conclusions:
I need to work out more to beef up my right thigh. Huge, pistol-shaped goose eggs hurt. CMC sights and "drop in" Novaks are a lot grippier than Novak Lo-Mounts. Gap jeans are slicker than they look. Thank Vishnu I have a belt, a holster, and two boot heels to use as striking surfaces. Pat gave valuable advice, but this is obviously going to take a lot more work...

abelew
January 5, 2005, 05:16 AM
Step on the slide, and do it that way, no snaging, just a danger of scratches to your gun, but if your in a gun fight.......scratches are probably a minor concern.

Samuel2001
January 6, 2005, 03:16 AM
The hell with all that! I'm putting an ambidextrous charging handle on my 1911. That sucker will grab and snag on everything! And I'll keep my Novaks on top to keep it sorta snag free! :rolleyes: