The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - So the bandit has the drop on you, so what

BlueTrain · January 9, 2012, 09:09 AM

Over training? That's a good one. I generally gather from reading in this forum that no one is adequately trained, much less over trained. Or at least that's the opinion of some people. Me? I don't know.

The think is, as I think I alread said, that this is only a single self defense senario, although for a civilian, it may the most important one if you live in town. If you live in wild Alaska, maybe not so important. If most of your outdoor time is spent in a car on a crowded highway, again not so important.

But assuming then that this close-in defensive situation is what you are most likely to have happen to you, more so than any other, then equip and train yourself for that moment and forget all that target shooting at 25 yards with your K-38. Because it won't help.

At this point I might bring up yet another diversion of opinions on self defense with a handgun as a subject for thought and discussion. There seems to have been two schools of thought on the matter of using a handgun for self defense. I already brought up the subject once but it seems worth mentioning again.

One line of thinking believes that you ought to be a proficient formal target shooter before you progress to an advanced topic like fast draw. Not surprisingly, most proponents of that belief were sucessful competitive target shooters and also mostly policemen. Bill Jordan was one such person, Elmer Keith (never a policeman) was another.

The other line of thinking is just the opposite and is, in a way, based partly on the assumption that you will not be able to become a proficient target shot, chiefly because there isn't enough time. But it is also based on the assumption that it detracts from actual combat shooting proficiency. That assumption was based on their own experiences and studies of old time gunfighter's techniques. These two distinctly separate approaches to gunfighting are older than I am, by the way.

I also observe that these two different ways of thinking have produced different kinds of guns for personal self defense. At one time the classic S&W K-38 was a common police weapon. It is easy to see which line of thinking those users followed. Likewise, there is the complete opposite with the Seecamp pistols, which don't even have sights. Seecamp's theory of self defense apparently didn't think a lot about shooting people (don't forget, that's what we're talking about) at 25 yards or even 15 yards. But I already see that one or two people in this thread are followers of the up close theory of serious shooting and have equipped themselves appropriately.

I'm still working on a few details in this regard myself.

January 9, 2012, 09:09 AM	#84
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Over training? That's a good one. I generally gather from reading in this forum that no one is adequately trained, much less over trained. Or at least that's the opinion of some people. Me? I don't know. The think is, as I think I alread said, that this is only a single self defense senario, although for a civilian, it may the most important one if you live in town. If you live in wild Alaska, maybe not so important. If most of your outdoor time is spent in a car on a crowded highway, again not so important. But assuming then that this close-in defensive situation is what you are most likely to have happen to you, more so than any other, then equip and train yourself for that moment and forget all that target shooting at 25 yards with your K-38. Because it won't help. At this point I might bring up yet another diversion of opinions on self defense with a handgun as a subject for thought and discussion. There seems to have been two schools of thought on the matter of using a handgun for self defense. I already brought up the subject once but it seems worth mentioning again. One line of thinking believes that you ought to be a proficient formal target shooter before you progress to an advanced topic like fast draw. Not surprisingly, most proponents of that belief were sucessful competitive target shooters and also mostly policemen. Bill Jordan was one such person, Elmer Keith (never a policeman) was another. The other line of thinking is just the opposite and is, in a way, based partly on the assumption that you will not be able to become a proficient target shot, chiefly because there isn't enough time. But it is also based on the assumption that it detracts from actual combat shooting proficiency. That assumption was based on their own experiences and studies of old time gunfighter's techniques. These two distinctly separate approaches to gunfighting are older than I am, by the way. I also observe that these two different ways of thinking have produced different kinds of guns for personal self defense. At one time the classic S&W K-38 was a common police weapon. It is easy to see which line of thinking those users followed. Likewise, there is the complete opposite with the Seecamp pistols, which don't even have sights. Seecamp's theory of self defense apparently didn't think a lot about shooting people (don't forget, that's what we're talking about) at 25 yards or even 15 yards. But I already see that one or two people in this thread are followers of the up close theory of serious shooting and have equipped themselves appropriately. I'm still working on a few details in this regard myself. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.