Printable View
Great post. Because I like a lot of different guns/calibers, I can go from one odd thing to another easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevH
I'm not an early adopter, so it will be another 15 years before I buy a 365. More cops here buy a 43X because they're used to Glocks, but it's starting to change with 2011s and 320/365s being authorized. The exception is an SO that dumped 320s for 509s because a guy's 320 "went off in his holster." :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AMC
I'll take your analogy a step further.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevH
My dad tells the story of when he and my mom were newly married, he was in the Navy, and were visiting friends, who offered up margaritas. Never having had a margarita, he was eager to try it. While watching them being prepared, he thought that it was sugar being applied to the rim of the glass. Discovering upon tasting that it was salt instead of sugar was a bit of a shock, and he doesn't care for margaritas to this day for that reason.
So, even never having experienced a thing before, the difference between that expectation and the reality can be jarring.
Also, I think that there may be something to inherently understanding a thing. We know how guns work, and understand how mechanically different a sliding 1911 trigger is to a pivoting DA trigger, and know to expect it to be different. To some folks, everything that happens from inserting the magazine into the gun and the loud noise is some form of magic. I have a hard time relating to such folks, but they are out there.
I believe your initial advice to carry the 229 was best. I know a non dedicated person like your friend who switched to the 365 and sucks with it, due to lack of practice that they had with another platform. Your friend won't practice, and could've used all those years of practice with the 229 to his benefit.
I don't disagree with you at all. I tried. I even gave him some solid holster recommendations. You can lead a horse to water...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Williams
First, let me say I sincerely agree with and appreciate the OP. I have worked almost exclusively with Glock pistols for over two decades. As retirement moves closer, I find myself asking-after leaving the organization-how competence or “good” will be defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevH
@KevH: in your OP, you reported the veteran officer qualified but was disappointed and confused about his shooting with his new SIG blaster, but that he did qualify. So, respectfully, how does one define “good”? I know on this site it has been discussed before, but what is your thinking and practice along these lines? What was the qual cof?
For me, in a (retired) defensive context, discretion would be the better part of valor, and if I can avoid/exit, I most probably will. But they may not be an option for some reason.
I get your original concept and it’s a good one. If I’m going to run my 1911s at an IDPA match for example, I’ll do my best to do maybe 5 minutes of dry practice so I know what the”taste” is going to be. FWIW, when I’ve done some volunteer instruction with civilians dedicated enough to come to a class or two, I’ve used the Gila Hayes 5x5 “qual”. There are a lot of CCWs that can’t pull that off initially-and I mean most. Just interested in opinions here-thanks
Kevin-
Very nicely done!
There is something to grip angle & size, albeit not for all;
Well, we all have our own definitions of "good" and I think it changes depending upon our experience and what we expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Rangemaster
Our department qual consists of:
Static silhouette shooting with time limits. All shots should be from the holster and be center mass, unless otherwise noted.
Scoring = 144 point minimum passing score.
• 25 yard line: Draw and fire 3 rounds strong-hand standing and 3 rounds strong hand kneeling, straight through. Barricade optional. No time limit. (6 rounds total)
• 15 yard line: Draw and fire 2 rounds center mass. No time limit. Repeat 3 times. (6 rounds total)
• 10 yard line: Draw and fire 2 rounds center mass in 4 seconds. Repeat 3 times. (6 rounds total)
• 7 yard line: Draw and fire 2 rounds center mass and 1 round to the head (failure drill) in 6 seconds. Repeat 2 times. (6 rounds total)
• 5 yard line: Draw and fire 2 rounds with the strong hand only, transition to the weak hand, and fire 2 more rounds with the weak hand only in 8 seconds. Repeat 2 times. (8 rounds total)
• 3 yard line: Draw and fire 2 rounds from the “guard” position in 3 seconds. Arms should not be fully extended and elbows should remain in contact with torso. Repeat 2 times. (4 rounds total)
Our target is our own design:
https://i.imgur.com/k71nOral.jpg
It's a little smaller than your standard B27. The numbers for scoring if you can't read them are 5, 3, 1.
That's the bare minimum Department qual. Our SWAT qual is much more difficult. Remember, we need to hold a whole department to this standard. That means everyone. We have some every year that can't pass it for whatever reason and have to remediate. It was pretty amazing last year after doing our 8 hour transition course to PMO's that every single person passed it. I'm still not sure if that is because of the optic or the fact that everyone spent 8 hours on the range. Time will tell.
Our officer is used to keeping all his rounds in the 5 in a fairly close pattern. Using this metric, I would describe that as "good." It's certainly a little better than average. With his brand spankin new P365 XMacro he wandered into the 3 with his "bigger than his average" pattern high left. It's not like he was off paper, but he recognized that it wasn't his "norm." His expectation after spending the weekend dry-firing and playing with his new toy and based on all the reviews he had read of how easy it was to shoot was that his performance would at least mimic his norm. It didn't.
There are lots of different standards we can apply (FAST, Hackathorn Standards, etc.). My expectation of myself (which I've had for almost twenty years now) is to shoot the above qual cold with a perfect score (everything in the 5). If I'm shooting in good conditions in daylight I better darn well have every center mass hit in the circle. I typically will go back to the 50 yard line to make sure I consistently hit the head of the silhouette at that distance as well. When I worked graveyards I would go up to the range on my lunch around 4 am and shoot it in the dark with just a flashlight or a my Code 3's going and a vehicle side light. I've used other standards over the years, but I always come back to this one because it's burned in my head.
@KevH - thank you for your detailed reply. I especially appreciate you taking the time to put out your qual. I thought the 25 yard shooting intriguing-might have to try that.
I think it was @jlw who has said something like only cold runs are definitive, so that’s another angle. For myself, I’m trying to be more disciplined about dry practice weekly; I’m pretty sure it will increase as my range time decreases.
I just used the handgun hero dot com site to compare a P365 and S&W 642, especially in the back-to-back orientation. I believe that I would perform poorly with P365, regardless of its trigger, unless/until I went through a multi-thousand-round transition. In my hands, a J-Frame, especially a rounded-butt J-Frame, is already on the edge of the point of diminishing returns, in the size envelope, unless I install grips that add height, and, please, dear Lord, no grips with a “banana” shape. One of my J-snubs has Sile wood grips than provide a square-butt conversion configuration, and add just a bit of overall height. The J remains pocketable, and will still work for ankle carry. (These Sile grips do not add as much height as S&W’s own wood J-Frame round-to-square conversion grips, that can be occasionally found pre-owned or NOS.)
I agree that the retiring officer, described in the OP, should get a really good concealment rig for his P229, but, if the P229 really is “too big,” well, I think that it would be better to carry the familiar J-Frame, and add a second J-Frame, to solve the rounds-on-board problem, and keep things within a familiar weapon profile. Too many of my LE colleagues have taken rounds to the arms and hands, during actual gunfights, here in the Houston metro area, in Texas, for me to see a second gun as anything but a good idea. The FBI incident in Dade County, in the mid-Eighties, provides more examples of second guns being tactically sound, and, then, CA has the Onion Field example.
For reference, I used a railed P229, as a primary duty pistol, 2004 to 2015, and from about 2006, until about 2012, carried a non-railed P229 during personal time. I got away from the P229, during personal time, when .40 S&W recoil became too much to tolerate, and I sold-off my non-railed P229 pistols. I continued to use my railed P229, as a duty pistol, with an X200 or X300 attached, to help damp the recoil, until 2015, at which point my chief OK’ed 9mm as a duty cartridge. The point is, a P229 is easy to conceal, even for the skinny person I still was, at the time.)
I got over my slim-line miniature-/micro-nine quest in the Nineties, and must concede that I have now some amount of prejudice against that entire class of pistol. My hands are not wide, but they are long. I wear size L gloves. Defensive weapons should “fill your hand.”
I reckon that I know little about beverages. If I am thirsty, I drink something, preferably with little or no sugar or alcohol.
They are popular for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by GJM
That said, with my xl size hands, I just stuck with the G19. I have a rule/question. I ask what is the smallest gun you are willing to get into a gunfight with against at least 2 people (who are also armed). The 19 is as small as I can go and shoot reasonably well. The P365 is a good gun, but it still requires a holster for me, so I figure I may as well just carry the bigger, easier to shoot (for me) G19. Most the time though, that really translates into a full size frame IWB. A g17/22. But I do understand why the P365s are so popular.