FNG

Ok, I have only one Comment regaurding one of yours FNG, for right now.

The Quick Draw Shooting at the hip is for the most part movie magic. It is a short range tactic still taught today for concealed carry courses. However, If you look up most shotting cases in the old west you will find that the winner's Aimed!

One such case would be the famous shootout between Bill Hickock and his friend Tutt over Hickock's pocket watch. The shot was made at 75 yards with an 1851 colt navy revolver. Each man fired one shot, they drew at about the same time, raised their handguns to sholder/eye level, aimed, and fired.

Another such case which illustrates my point further was between a gambler and a hothead. I do not have the names offhand, but when the shooting started, the hothead drew first at a greater range and started blasting his handgun as fast as he could, a single action. The Gambler was armed with a then new Colt Double action, in .41 caliber I believe. He calmly drew his revolver, aimed at the guy, and pulled the trigger, killing the hotheaded guy.

Point shooting can be effective within its limitations, however hollywood has distorted a lot. There are a few times when a movie has gotten it correct. John Wayne's "The Shootist" where he explains to the kid about being deliberant and committed was more important than being fast. Also, If you watch in "Open Range" you will notice when "Charley" draws his revolver, he brings it up eye level to sight down the barrel when shooting. Hollywood does occasionally get something right, but it is a rarity. They are in the business of making money, not producing factual real life stuff. Action sells. A quick draw artist who can hit things at 100 yards from the hip is considered cool and "Action Filled", while a guy who aims his weapon is not.

In fact, you being a military guy, you might apreciate this next one. the Movie "Heartbreak Ridge".. Do they really teach servicemen to fire their M-16's from the hip in combat, like they do for most of the movie? Of course not. But that isn't interesting to hollywood.

 

Made more sense than the post I was replying to.

 

Moral equivalency argument is a fail and resort of the small mind. . .

 

Yes Hollywood does embellish.

For one there are no pretty red flames when things blow up. Having been on the 'giving and receiving end' of that I can tell you that when a truck is hit by a tank round the result is closer to the Coyote blowing himself up, where there is only a greasy black stain left and a tire falls out of the sky and bounces, then the big pretty red blow outs in movies.

There are more than one type of fight.

I am well aware of the need to put lead down range, I am also aware that disciplined fire produces more positive results.

That said, if you spend enough time with your weapon you can hit things without aiming, pistols are pretty easy, with a good fit the first bone of your trigger finger is inline with the target. (A lot of caviats there but I do have a point.)

The aware steely eyed killer will beat the 'en sh'ala' hothead spray and pray shooter 9/10.

The rocking the pistol backwards and shooting over the top of the holster as a quick draw, served the primary purpose of clearing the leather holster, while allowing the shooter the ability to start putting lead down range, which scares most people to death, and starts them missing.

Years and years ago I was watching some 'wild west' show on discovery and they pulled out the statistic that in Tombstone they had something like 1500 fist fights and 1 gun fight in a year. Even though everyone carried.

As Stumbler has mentioned a few times, there was a time when if you were behaving like an idiot with your firearm everyone around you would correct you. And if a hothead goes to guns in a bar, he will have fifty of them pointed at him, because no one knows where that hothead will shoot.

There is more than one way to win a gunfight :excited:

 

I'm just telling about a before and after opportunity to shoot .45 autos I had at a gun smiths shop one time. And I could not tell you what the actual years were they were made but during and before World War II.

And the improved accuracy came from the modifications he made which included getting rid of a couple of safety features and especially the spring loaded safety at the end of the barrel.

Finally, shooting at 25 yards is not much of a testament to accuracy.

You've just got to get over the myth that most working cowboys even owned a gun let alone carried one. They earned between 25 and 50 cents per day and invested their earnings in saddles and tack not guns.

And the myth of cowboys and guns actually comes from two distinct sources. One is the Western dime novels and the other is Samuel Colt running the first successful national advertising campaign for his new Colt .45, and using the image of cowboys to romanticize it.

That's actually where the Hollywood image of the gun totting cowboy comes from.

First I'm not talking about cap and ball revolvers which have to have features to keep all the chambers from going off at once and were never carried by cowboys anyway.

I'm talking about the early Colt single actions and all the cheap knock off imitations of them that were actually way more dangerous than the Colts.

And the biggest danger was dropping them or something hitting the hammer which is why they kept the hammer resting on an empty cylinder.

But let me hit this one more time. The image of the gun totting cowboy is a myth. It just never was.

And the reason I know that is because the last summer I cowboyed the ranch foreman saw a fox for the first time on the mountain and feared (and he was right) if the foxes got a hold they'd kill off all the Sage Chickens. So he let me and his son carry guns and he carried one to try and kill the fox.

That's when I not only learned there's really no safe comfortable way to carry a gun on a horse, I also learned REAL cowboys will make fun of you if you do. My grandpa was working for an old rancher on an outfit just a few miles from us and they nicknamed us the "Wild Bunch" for packing guns. The name stuck and it was the joke of the branding circle that summer.

There's no safe way to sleep with a gun under your pillow. There's just too many things the hammer and trigger can get hung up on including your own fingers.

Besides for home self defense I prefer a 12 gauge shotgun because its just point and shoot and you can fill a whole doorway or hallway with a single shot.

In the long run, however, I found that being paranoid enough to think I had to have a gun within easy reach at all times was actually more dangerous to me than the odds I'd ever need one to shoot another human with.

That was just a very unhealthy and unsafe state of mind.

 

More on Cowboys.

Well, You are entitled to your opinion, however the daily living out west at least until later times saw the firearm as an essential component of a person's livelihood. Now, as for Cap and ball revolvers. It is funny that you would dismiss them. Given that Yes, Firearms were expensive, and many people returning after the civil war kept their sidearms, many people did not replace them with the new Single action army revolvers. If you look into the actual history you will find that Cap and Ball revolvers saw continued use even into the late 1880's.

Second, When riding line, dealing with any rustlers, indian attacks, anything that may come up including hunting for food, a firearm was a tool of equal importance to a horse. Your Comment reminds me of a certain college professor who about 10 years ago I think, Had published a work contrary to all other historical documents and studies claimed that American citizens and settlers living out west in the 19th century did not own firearms whatsoever. It was quickly touted by much of the media and though proved to be false, has still been popping up being sited as authentic.

Now, I could go into family history because I do have family that grew up on, worked, and still work with a functioning ranch. That isn't the point. A firearm was an essential piece of equipment for a majority of people living out west. While many did not have handguns, they had rifles or shotguns. Even in towns. The Northfield bank Raid by the James-Younger gang is good proof of this. When the Citizenry realized a robbery was going on, they went and got their Personal firearms. Those who did not have their firearms were armed by the local stores. The citizens defeated the gang. One of those notable citizens was a German immigrant who had his prized Shutzen rifle that he brought with him from europe. He put fire on the gang from a covered walk a ways up the street.

Now, I would be interested in hearing any credible sources you have so I may personally look them up and research them. I highly recomend that you do some in depth research yourself into it. The Northfield raid, and the Coffeyville raid by the dalton gang are good places to start if you do.

 

FNG

I am aware of quick draw tactics, and if you look up some stuff, you will find that some people made some pretty nutty holsters. One notable version was a metal slot on a belt that a screw on a revolver slid into and could be rotated at the hip, or brought straighforward and up. It didn't catch on, and most users did not live long if they rellied on it.

Another historical occurance was during world war 2 by Thompson sub-machine gun operators. A tactic devloped allowed for point shooting out to about 50 or 60 yards by tucking the stock under their armpit, and pointing it where they wanted to hit. It was reasonably effective. Beyond that range though they were instructed to bring the gun up and sight along the barrel. Only at ranges of 20 yards or less generally when clearing a building or room would any "hipshooting" be used. The thompson went through a 30rd stick extremely fast.

I myself have studied on pointshooting, and even worked on a drill to learn it and increase skill at it, since it developes very good hand-eye coordination. Using a 38/357 revolver I put a metal T shaped fence post in the ground. From 10 and 15 yards I would practice drawing and pointing at the post where I wanted to hit it from hip level. After a short while of doing this, it became easy to hit the metal post each time, occasionally missing 1 shot out of a 6 shot cylinder. Keep in mind that the post is only about an inch in width at the most. If you try it, I highly recomend using a lead bullt, as being softer they allow you to get more life out of the post, because it will bend and eventually need to be replaced. If you want a bigger target, a 4x4 post can be substituted.

Finally, I am well aware of our military's adoptance of the european lock step 'More bullets down range will eventually hit something" policy. That is why we current have the combat useless 5.56 and 9mm pistol rounds in use today. I am of the school that a single well aimed shot from an intermediate or large caliber is better than a bunch of random shots from a small caliber weapon. The larger rounds carry the energy to put a combatant down with one shot. If the person is hopped up on drugs, maybe two. The larger rounds also allow you to more effectively target key points on the body that allow for immediate stopping of a mobile enemy. Much as when hunting dangerous game, you shoot the bone structure to immobilize it, not for the lungs when it is charging you from 40 yards.

 

Clarification point.

To Clarify something stumbler said earlier for any new readers.

25 yards is the current standard for a combat accuracy rating of a handgun. Most Semi-auto factory pistols will shoot a 2.5 to 5 inch group at this distance. Therefore the 1 inch groups I mentioned earlier really are something of interest. If it were a rifle then it would not be the case, as 100 yards is the accepted benchmark for long arms when determining minute of angle rating (One minute of a degree).

It should also be noted that in most cases, the accuracy of Handguns follows the pattern of Semi-autos(Least Accurate), Double action Revolvers(More accurate), and Single action revolvers(Most Accurate). This however is not always the case, just a standard trend. A single action hunting revolver with target sights must be distinguished from a wild west styled gun with more rudimentary sights. Generally, the less moving parts you have, the more accurate the firearm.

As I mentioned earlier, the combat 1911's had a very loose barrel that when going into battery would move both laterally(Horizontal bullet placement, and also vertically do to the chamber end of the barrel being moved up or down as the slide closed. It just depended on what position the barrel was in as to where the thing would shoot. My apologies for not putting that in my earlier post.

 

Allow me a story to illustrate my faith in the 5.56mm round:

Once upon a time I was a young 2LT on my last day in Korea, and I was wandering around Dong Di Tong, outside of CP Casey. I wandered into a shop looking for a hand bag for a young lady friend. This was in summer 2001. The shop owner was an 2LT when he arrived in Vietnam with the ROK Marines. His company came under attack by an NVA battalion (-), and this crazy fucker watched his CO's head explode in the opening volley and the rest of the officers die in front of him (command chat), as the only officer, and a 2LT at that, he took command of the company and was shot four times during the fight, the AK rounds passing clean through and continuing on their merry way. He kept fighting. They kicked the shit out of the NVA, the ROK Marines are some hard core motherfuckers. The last thing that old man said to me was "Eel-tee! AK, shit! M16 great! Little hole going in (holding up his pinky), big whole coming out (holding his hands in a thumb-thumb to index-index circle)".

Personal experience with the weapon too. . . the 5.56 is a fucking evil little round. If you are hit anywhere with that thing it will fuck you up. Bad guys hate it. If they are hit they will at best be crippled for life where they are hit, it just shreds flesh.

It is also nice because you don't have to watch your background as much as the AK. It won't blow through buildings and hit civilians inside.

The design of the weapons also contributes to accuracy on the M16/M4 variants verses the AK series. The AK has an 'off center' bolt balance that pulls the weapon to the upper right. (One reason spray and pray doesn't work, the first two rounds are close, after that it is pissing in the wind.)

There is also a LOT to support standard lots and types of ammo. The pain in the ass of ordering 15 types of ammo for WWII infantry platoon disappears when everyone can use the same ammo. That is one of the Israeli's major issues, is they have ammo types out the ass, because every battalion has it's own weapon types and calibers. I can pick up any NATO allied dead man's weapon, take his ammo, and turn it on the bad guys in the US Army.

Even those fucking aggravating Brits who liked to drive at 10 k/h in the middle of the road could be useful if they went down. I could take their ammo and kill the bad guys with it

 

Ammo

You made some valid points there FNG. Though I think the Military rounds must be far superior to anything local police forces can get because Many people shot with the 5.56(.223 remington) live to tell about it. It does not blow limbs off with a single shot, and location placement has more to do with someone ending up disabled. A shot to the spine from a 22 long rifle will disable someone.

Now, certain countries have always been known for certain things. The Germans, Finely manufactured, super tight tollerance equiptment, including their guns. It has caused problems in areas as well. The Ruskies on the otherhand, firearms made with a lot of slop, that you can do anything to and they will fire no matter what. They may not be super accurate, but they will always fire no matter how badly they get treated. It is interesting that you mention being able to use other countries 5.56 rounds as well, because the Russian AK-74 is known for doing just that. There is so much slop in the action that they can fire our 5.56 rounds through their guns chambered for the 5.56x39 cartridge. They over their tout that cartidge as a poisoness round, much like you just did. However, a 5.56 is not a stopper. A great example is that the enemy does not fear the 5.56. Sure they don't want to get shot, but when you compare that to the 50BMG, they view that round with the same reverance as "The hand of god". They Fear the 50. Now I guess Upclose the 5.56 in todays urban fighting is usefull and where you still have most of your power it is ok. However, It still does not match the 7.62 NATO round as used by the M24 Weapons system. There is a reason snipers don't use the 5.56.

In every conflict it has seen use in starting with Vietnam, stories filter back about instances where whole magazines have been emptied into enemy combatants, mostly ones hopped up on drugs of some sort, and them just barely being stopped. Reminds me of the early part of the 20th century when the military was going to what was basically a 38 special round. They found out quickly that it wasn't a stopper, and we wound up with the .45ACP being adopted in 1911. That Cartidge today is still regaurded as the best Combat pistol round ever made. Since we also mentioned world war 2, it should be mentioned that the Germans firmly protested against the .45ACPs use by both british and American forces. Their Reason? "At least you had a chance of surviving getting shot by a 9mm Parrabellum, the .45 was too deadly even with only one shot."

One other thing I forgot to mention last night that you might find interesting.. You talked about shooters correcting others when they are being dangerous, like stumbler posted about. Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's there are instances written down where people talk about stupid irresponsible people using what is considered today a Gang Style Shooting tactic. Holding their handguns Sideways. If I remember reading correctly in my research from a few years back, some cities even passed ordinances forbidding it. Just kind of an interesting side note.

 

FNG, Found the reference

I did some looking here this week because I prefer to quote easily researchable points that are facts. The Gambler story I told you about Occured on February 8, 1887 in Fort Worth at the White Elephant saloon and Occured between Luke Short(A part owner in the saloon and gambler by trade) and Jim Courtright. The issue was over Courtright demanding protection money(Yes he was a thug) for the saloon. When both men started shooting, it was at fairly close range and though Courtright drew first, Short's shots hit Courtrights gun and his chest. He was methodical, not rushing as courtright was. It had been quite a while since I read up on that event, so I wanted to correct some of my other stated innaccuracies from the previous post.

 

You are correct on all counts.

The 5.56 will not tear off limbs, but it will rip and rend muscle groupings, and make a severe mess of inner workings. Believe me when I tell you you can kill with a 5.56. That 'rip a clip' nonsense is a Vietnam draftee thing. The only time I ever stepped up to 3rnd, was when I was practicing. I used semi for everything from patrol, to room clearing, to distance work.

The more rounds you fire the more you need to carry. and rounds are fucking heavy with it is 120*-140* F.

The rounds in the Barrett and M24 and their associated fear factor is a combination of the sniper mystique and the devastation of the round itself. A Barrett will cut a man in half, or liquify any extremity it hits. The Sniper in general is extremely feared because they pluck individuals off the battle field. Where the opponents prefer the spray and pray attack a sniper calmly calls targets on a crowded street and kills two arms dealers, one buyer and wounds the second buyer (on purpose for questioning) not even scratching the civilians on a crowded marked Saturday morning. Then again parking a tank in the middle of an intersection has a tendency to stop all shenanigans before they even start.

There are different applications of force for different situations.

 

​

 

Aside from my great grandfather homesteading in Wyoming in the late 1880's him, my great uncles, my grandfather and myself all being working cowboys at one time I guess I would offer these sources to show you've believing a bunch of mythological bullshit about cowboys, the old west, cowboys and indians and gunfights.

http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/literature-american-cowboy

http://www.cartermuseum.org/edu_guides/smith/resources/True_Grit_activitypage.htm

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/weblect/lec03/03_05.htm

http://www.indyschild.com/Articles-...112-Cowboy-Legends-Myth-and-Reality-Meet.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html

[/quote]

 

I agree on your points, But when the AR15 (M16) was designed by Colt in the 60's the rifling was 1-14 twist it is now between 1-7 1-8 twist so they sped up the round.

When the first ones were built and they were attempting to sell it to the military the demonstration everything was destroyed when it was tried in the field the biggest problem they had was they tried to recycle the ball powder and that was dirty and caused the weapon the jam. But death was instantaneous one guy was hit in the head and his head was taken clean off, one was hit in the chest his back was gone, one was hit in the foot and it split his leg to his hip, one guy did live for approximately 5 minuets and he was hit in the ass.

The sped up the round so that they would have the enemy cal for help and then you had more targets.

It is a good weapon and I do not really know the difference between the 5.56 and 2.23 (it is the same size round and charge is the same either 55, 62 or 70 something) The information I posted was from the "Complete AR15-M16 Source book. That has a lot of information in it I bought it after the first Colt AR-15 I bought.

 

Let me ask you AR15 fans a question ...........

which will shoot six shells faster; an AR15 or a single action six shot revolver?

 

Well the Zombie apocalypse is unlikely, the tiranical goverment is undoughtfull and this coultry was started by a gathering of small terrorest cells fighting a world power for the rights to have something to defend themselves with.
The 2nt amendment is Not antiquated and never will be.

 

I love my right to bear arms. It's a freedom I've served to defend. Although I am an advocate of better firearm security. Gun safety etc. I also believe under certain circumstances certain ex cons should be able to have hunting rights. I worked narcotic interdiction for a bit, but I've seen people who had a dwi and can never own a firearm in certain states. I'm all for violent criminals without guns, but some laws are too extreme.