View Full Version : Question for Rob, Erick or Denny...
November 29, 2007, 06:36 PM
Or anyone else who has an opinion on this. Regarding stovepipe stoppages I have seen many training dvds or articles from many well respected trainers who advocate tap, roll ,rack (as per type 1 stoppage ) to clear the problem. I like this idea of commonality, however many trainers that I have great respect for ( kelly mccann for one ) counsel against this on the grounds it may cause a double feed. I have set up stovepipes using orange safety rounds to experiment but have not been able to induce a double feed. I can't see how the slide can come forward far enough ( at least when round is trapped straight up or to the side and not some bizzare way ) to strip new round from magazine feed lips initially, something which would have to happen if racking slide again was going to cause double feed. Do you gentlemen have any empirical evidence as to probability of causing a double feed by utilising tap,roll,rack and what method do you use/recommend. Thanking everyone in advance for their suggestions as I am somewhat confused :confused: at present.
November 30, 2007, 01:39 AM
I cannot think of seeing a double feed induced by simply tapping and racking (with or without the roll) in response to a stove pipe.
I teach to address any malfunction that starts with a normal trigger actuation and doesn't result in a round being fired with a Tap-Rack as an immediate action drill and only add other steps if necessary. This works well over 90% of the time with real failures to fire, failure to feed and stovepipes. The most common reason to do anything else comes from a failure to extract caused by something like a ripped case rim or broken extractor. The Tap-Rack will them induce a double feed, which necessitates additional action.
I have frequently pointed out that if you happen to notice the stove pipe in the process of getting to the rack, that you might consciously "sweep" the stove-piped case out of the way as you get your hand into position to rack. This is not a necessary step, and it would require looking at the gun at the moment of the Failure to Fire if it were going to be doctrine.
I, like you, prefer commonality. Consistency in our mechanical techniques leads to greater efficiency in our abilities.
Thanks for asking!
November 30, 2007, 02:03 AM
Thanks for your reply. The only way people like me can access information from world class instructors like yourself ( short of an expensive trip to the US ) is to make use of forums frequented by quality trainers and experienced shooters in general. For this reason ANY input I receive is very much appreciated.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.