PDA

View Full Version : dual-wielding


ks_wayward_son
February 4, 2011, 02:58 AM
It looks interesting...okay, downright cool...when I see a cowboy use dual sixguns to mop up the bad guys or if a fellow dispatches enemies with extreme prejudice using two 1911s or other semiautos at once in the movies. But, just how tactically sound or even possible is it in true life? I have a heck of a time still trying to become proficient with one set of sights...let alone two. Pretty much have to be supremely talented with multi-tasking and ambidexterity, I might think. So what says you fellas? Ever tried it at the range or witnessed someone able to pull it off?

Crazy88Fingers
February 4, 2011, 04:02 AM
I tried it once at the range with my S&W .38 in my right hand, and a rented 9mm Glock in my left. I'm right handed. I was doing alright with the revolver, but the Glock kept stove-piping.

Anyway, moral of the story: it's much harder than it looks.

Micahweeks
February 4, 2011, 04:53 AM
There is a legitimate use for two pistols against multiple attackers, but it is last ditch desperation in a situation you'd probably not survive anyway. The offhand pistol is used to point shoot and suppress one Target. The goal is to make him run or stay down behind cover until your strong hand pistol can deal with the most imminent threat. Don't bet on it working, though. Like I said, it is desperate and not very effective.

Jamas
February 4, 2011, 05:15 AM
I have tried it.... I failed
My brother a friend and me all tried it with a different combination of guns
A .38 snub, a m&p 40 full size, XD 5" .45, Glock 40 I don't know the glock numbers... anyway very hard to pay attention to the off hand gun while firing dominant hand.
If you are good at point shooting it is helpful because you just switch focus between targets and fire just two shots at a time. Even though I do carry two guns and they are on opposite sides, I really hope it would never come to that.. because I'm not that good at it:D

rantingredneck
February 4, 2011, 06:34 AM
I've done it at the range a couple times. Beyond 5-7 yards or so it's not terribly practical. You're basically point shooting 2 guns as you can't focus on both sets of sights at the same time. As already said, an act of desperation perhaps and not a terribly effective one.

KLRANGL
February 4, 2011, 08:51 AM
Movie guns have little to no recoil, so it's easy to keep your gun on target one handed and put rounds down range.

Not so much with real guns. You can put more rounds down range faster and more accurately with one firearm (and lots of practice).

kymarkh
February 4, 2011, 09:12 AM
In real life you will probably need your other hand to use a light, open doors, push away attackers, etc. I'm trying to practice at the range with one hand more often now to account for this reality.

BlueTrain
February 4, 2011, 11:17 AM
I honestly don't think it is that difficult to do and I've even done it at the range. However, it helps if the two handguns are identical; very difficult otherwise. Likewise, shooting with the left hand (for right handed people) alone I always found to be very awkward, though not impossible. But with a like gun in both hands, all the awkwardness seems to vanish. But I only tried it with double action revolvers and I don't claim there is any tactical reason to shoot like that. I for one need two hands for a reload.

aarondhgraham
February 4, 2011, 11:31 AM
But I honestly can't see anyone,,,
Except for maybe a Hollywood hero,,,
Trying to use two handguns in a real situation.

I used my Ruger 22/45 and my Beretta NEOS,,,
Lotsa ammo downrange and lotsa fun,,,
But very few center mass hits.

I'll admit it does look really cool though,,,
Especially if you do that flying sideways through the air thing as well.

Maybe that's the new category for practical matches,,,
John McClain action shooting scenarios. :eek:

I'll pass on the bare feet and broken glass stage.

Aarond

Burger
February 4, 2011, 11:47 AM
I was doing alright with the revolver, but the Glock kept stove-piping.


Probably limp wristing because it was your non-dominant hand

c0nspire
February 4, 2011, 11:53 AM
In SASS competitions there is a class set aside for folks who want to shoot this way ("Gunfighter" if I recall). I've seen it a number of times and while it looks like a lot of fun, I seem to recall those folks having a higher number of misses on average than regular competitors. I think it takes a lot more coordination and focus to hit what you're aiming at (especially if you are alternating shots with each hand as the SASS folks usually do). As said before, having identical guns in each hand helps. I don't think there's a practical application aside from grins, and I'm fairly certain that most of the guys that I saw shoot that way would agree... it's for fun only.

SPUSCG
February 4, 2011, 11:55 AM
Dual wielding championships would be cool, see how many pros could actually pull it off.

kraigwy
February 4, 2011, 12:07 PM
Wouldn't it be better, and more effective just to put one gun in one hand and........................LEARN TO SHOOT..........instead of seeing how many rounds you can put down range regardless whether you hit anything or not.

FoxtrotRomeo
February 4, 2011, 12:31 PM
Wouldn't it be better, and more effective just to put one gun in one hand and........................LEARN TO SHOOT..........instead of seeing how many rounds you can put down range regardless whether you hit anything or not.
Today 10:55 AM

Well sometimes you just want to have some fun. However the OP is asking how effective it is and one of the measurements of effectiveness is accuracy.

I've never done it. It would be interesting to try though. I would be going for accuracy though. However I'm not expecting miracles either.

The only advantage I have is that though I am right handed I frequently practice firing with either hand. So shooting lefty is not all that odd to me. I'm an ambidextrous shooter. I'm pretty much equally as good with either hand. I do it so that should I ever have to defend myself, I can maneuver corners and cover a little better by switching hands.

Any how it would be interesting. You would have to point both barrels slightly in toward the center for a single target though, alternate trigger pulls like a set of pistons going off instead of double the recoil and use point shooting. At a max, two shots by one pistol at a time. It would take a set up of three targets and random target selection for pistol drills in dual wielding and a lot of time at the range. But like others here have said. I wouldn't dare think of doing it except if the situation went to crap and it's do or die with multiple targets coming at various angles.

JohnnyBmore
February 4, 2011, 12:48 PM
I can draw my two 1911's & keep all rounds on two separate steel silhouette targets till the guns are out .... drop both mags reload um & do it again fast as well .. 15 yards is as far as I have practiced & kept it on target .

Super fun!!!! now would I do it in a self defense situation ?.. Don't think so

But I love "Last man standing" to much to not practice almost every time I hit the range ...lol

my girls ...
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k257/wendi-ty-yas-lily/1109001812.jpg

markj
February 4, 2011, 04:33 PM
Give it a try, it is hard. I can hit one or the other but not the two of them. I get real close on the second but it still is a miss. I saw a guy do it on TV while discussing the wild bill shootout where he shot 2 guys at the same time.

I think my eyesite is the limiter for me, my left eye is damaged and doesnt see tha same as the right one even after 2 laser surgeries.

raimius
February 4, 2011, 10:39 PM
At "point shooting distances" it can work.

Effectively shooting one pistol in the ISO or modified-Weaver stance would probably produce better results for most people, and it can be used over a MUCH wider variety of ranges.

BGutzman
February 4, 2011, 10:54 PM
It sounds fun, if expensive on the ammo and who knows what the second gun is going to hit... When the zombies take over I will try it during my last stand. :D

FoxtrotRomeo
February 5, 2011, 01:00 AM
When the zombies take over I will try it during my last stand.

In the wild turn of events when and if that ever becomes a reality, I will get really nasty. lol :)

Crosshair
February 5, 2011, 02:18 AM
Wouldn't it be better, and more effective just to put one gun in one hand and........................LEARN TO SHOOT..........instead of seeing how many rounds you can put down range regardless whether you hit anything or not.
Well it really depends on what kind you are talking about. In old West style shooting I can see it as advantageous. Reloading is measured in minutes and misfires were quite more common, so it would make sense to have two guns if ones finances allowed it.

M.O.A.
February 5, 2011, 02:40 AM
jerry michalak or how ever u spell his name can do it and do it real fast

Auto426
February 5, 2011, 02:52 AM
I've seen Cowboy Action shooters doing it in competition, but they are simply aiming and firing one gun at a time, Just because you are holding two guns doesn't mean you have to shoot them both at once. They are also shooting single action revolvers, which are much easier to shoot one handed than most modern semi-autos.

However, in the real world, shooting a single gun with two hands is much better. hitting your target with one bullet is much better than missing with two. Duel-wielding may be alright if your point shooting at very close range, but it can't beat good old fashioned two handed shooting techniques. If I happened to have two guns on me in such a situation I'd simply use the second one as a New York reload instead of spraying rounds at random with it.

threegun
February 5, 2011, 08:19 AM
Cool has no place in self defense. Two guns equal more chance of injuring an innocent. It also seems that prosecutors would be more eager to make issue with it.

That said I have done it and it is difficult and dangerous. I can see me swinging left and right and shooting myself in the hand if I go to far. So be careful if you are going to try it.

jglsprings
February 5, 2011, 09:27 AM
Cool has no place in self defense. Two guns equal more chance of injuring an innocent. It also seems that prosecutors would be more eager to make issue with it.

That said I have done it and it is difficult and dangerous. I can see me swinging left and right and shooting myself in the hand if I go to far. So be careful if you are going to try it.

:eek:

BitterTait
February 5, 2011, 10:04 AM
It's on my long list of Stupid Gun Tricks to try, right up there with bump firing and spin cocking a lever action. Probably fun, slight dangerous, rather stupid, and tactically useless. But I'm a child of Hollywood by deuce.

SPUSCG
February 5, 2011, 10:07 AM
Maybe cover fire, you know when the obect is to fire as many shots as possible? Other than that, just fun at the range.

goodspeed(TPF)
February 6, 2011, 12:07 AM
http://images.tzaam.com/full/fy.jpg


You too can be this AWESOME.

EricReynolds
February 6, 2011, 12:48 AM
Funny, I just made mention of this in an unrelated thread. BlueTrain is correct in that to do this, you'll want similar weapons. Two autos or two revolvers and same caliber. A full size and a subcompact won't work. It is, as some have stated, a lot harder than it looks. However to those who think it impractical I tell you that with anything difficult it just takes practice. You start out firing with your right hand like you would shoot normally one handed, then do the same with your left and continue to alternate while gradually increase how quickly you fire. In time a proficient shooter can become quite adept at dual wielding. I suggest doing it with .22s as it will take a little while and plinking can get costly. And yeah...it's double the fun!

BlueTrain
February 6, 2011, 07:56 AM
I have to add here that I only did that once or twice. Only a couple of times did I ever have two handguns that were similiar. I would imagine it would be even harder with single actions but although I've owned several, I can't say I "came around" to that way of doing things. On the subject of single actions, and this has nothing to do with two-gun shooting, there was a time not so long ago when it was considered progressive to shoot double action revolvers in a single action mode only, presumably because it was an aid to accuracy. That even included in police work. That was also when police departments, who were virtually all equipped with only revolvers, sometimes gave proficiency pay for good scores on the range. So you had policemen carrying basically target revolvers, like S&W K-38s. Not necessarily a bad thing but those who went in for really heavy barrels (which helped shooting) usually went back to standard guns for everyday use.

I was trying to think of how many times I've seen two gun shooting in the movies (with single actions) but I can't say I remember many. While accuracy was irrelevant in the movies, after ten years of handling a Colt before a camera, lots of actors probably because pretty slick with them. But most movie cowboys only carried one anyway.

Sorry to keep mentioning Ed McGivern but he devoted a whole chapter to the subject. More in the nature of trick shooting for him, however.

Wolfeye
February 6, 2011, 05:51 PM
I knew a guy with a weird name who tried it. He said it was easy to hit one target up close, but it became impossible to hit anything at a distance or to actually hit more than one target at once. You basically pull two triggers and miss a lot.

My conclusion? You have to take these steps to get proficient at dual-weilding:

learn to shoot one handgun using both hands
learn to shoot effectively with your strong hand
train until you can shoot off-hand as well as you can with your strong hand
then try to shoot with two guns at once


I think a person would be better off training until they can shoot more quickly & accurately using one gun.

GM1967
February 8, 2011, 11:11 AM
At most you could use the sights on one of the guns, the other would be point shooting. More likely both point shooting. Accuracy would suffer (perhaps an understatement), but might be sufficient at short range. You would be most accurate firing both at a single target; firing at two targets simultaneously would be very difficult.

Tactically, there aren't a lot of reasons to do this. Generally, firing one gun well would be better than fire two guns less well. However, assuming you are in an area where missed shots are highly unlikely to hit a bystander, there could be some tactical applications. Suppressive fire, to allow you or someone else to advance, retreat, reload, get a door open or something. Using one gun in each hand, but only aiming and firing one at a time could provide an advantage, since you'd have twice the magazine capacity before you had to reload. However, you'd have to be really good at one handed shooting, and your off-hand would have to be nearly as good as your dominant hand. Reloading, needless to say, would be very difficult.

It's hard to imagine a circumstance in the real world where you'd have to do this, but in the world of action movies characters often get into situations where there's lots of bad guys (whom it's justifiable to just kill), and two guns might work well against closely packed bad guys in close quarters. Can also imagine an action movie hero walking up to two terrorists from behind and shooting them both simultaneously at point blank range by pressing both muzzles into their back. In the real world, it's hard to imagine a circumstance where any of that would be justifiable.

In the real world, you're responsible for every bullet you fire, so anything that makes misses more likely is to be avoided.

tdrizzle
February 8, 2011, 02:37 PM
Tried it once with a .45 and a 4 inch Smith .38. I still have the scar on the top of my thumb from the slide of the .45 to remind me how dumb an idea it is. haven't done it since...

OsOk-308
February 8, 2011, 05:49 PM
To avoid the stove piping, shoot a revolver with the non-dominant hand! Might not solve accuracy problems though!

Nnobby45
February 8, 2011, 05:56 PM
There is a legitimate use for two pistols against multiple attackers, but it is last ditch desperation in a situation you'd probably not survive anyway.

If it would be more effective in an extreme emergency, why wouldn't it also be more effective as a general tactic?

Two pistols, yes. But not at the same time. And if you have doubts, try it out some time in a range session where you're not under stress and see how it works out for 'ya.

Then, to get your shaken confidence back, proceed to perforate the targets using one gun---just like you always have.:D

SPUSCG
February 8, 2011, 06:01 PM
I used to dual wield winchester 1887s but then they got nerfed.

Crosshair
February 8, 2011, 10:54 PM
I used to dual wield winchester 1887s but then they got nerfed.

http://files.sharenator.com/i_see_what_you_did_there_RE_Anyone_else_see_it-s450x545-95526.jpg

ChileVerde1
February 9, 2011, 12:59 AM
Admittedly as cool as it looks, I can't help but think accidental discharge (AD). What really worries me is a sympathetic reflex may cause an AD in the opposite hand or shooting yourself in the opposite hand , foot, etc... I'm sorry, I really hate being a downer but just couldn't help it!

Davey
February 9, 2011, 01:07 AM
I used to dual wield winchester 1887s but then they got nerfed.

A terribly needed nerf at that. Dual G18s were far more effective although it makes you flame bait. :cool:

I tried shooting my XD left handed once. It was so awkward that I felt it to be unsafe and won't do it again. No dual wielding for me.

Slopemeno
February 9, 2011, 02:39 AM
OK, confession time. I've done this *once* with two Hi-Standard 10-B bullpup shotguns.

FreakGasolineFight
February 9, 2011, 02:54 AM
I've tried it before, when nobody was looking. Empty ranges are tempting.

Fact is, it really doesn't work. All the ruckus is highly disorienting (at least for me) and brass goes EVERYWHERE, including all over the gun in your right hand and your right forearm. Didn't have any problems with jamming, though.

jokester_143
February 9, 2011, 04:17 AM
Me and a buddy were at the range one day, and discussed this same thing. He tried alternating fire with each pistol, a Glock 19 and a XDM .40. I tried trying to fire them at the exact same time. I was little be more on paper than he was, but that's not saying much. We kept the "unfamiliar" pistol in our weak hand.



...On a different note, I hate that you can dual-wield shotguns in Modern Warfare 2. So many people complained about that nerf saying it was unfair to punish them for their "skill" with them. Not much skill needed, especially since they had the range of a SMG... but now I am starting to rant...

LordTio3
February 9, 2011, 07:51 AM
So no one ELSE has been practicing to be able to pull off the back-flipping, double-target-suppression, evening gown assassination maneuver?

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/tr7/leg6.jpg

Freaking WASTE of time. I don't know why I bother sometimes. Think of all the hours at the Range-Gym I've thrown away.;)

~LT

LordTio3
February 9, 2011, 07:53 AM
Though dual weilding pistols really seems to help you in the event of a "Mexican Standoff".

http://www.soundonsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mexican-standoff-photo.jpg

Think about it.

~LT

SPUSCG
February 9, 2011, 09:33 AM
Dual Wielded pythons reload quicker than a single python.

Last Knight
February 9, 2011, 10:09 AM
I've seen it done effectively to take out multiple opponents in a CQB situation - in airsoft. As someone else mentioned, without recoil, all sorts of things become much easier and more feasible.

Looked amazingly cool, though.

JohnKSa
February 9, 2011, 10:11 AM
Ok, I think this one has outlived its usefulness...