Glock once stood for uber eliability; I don't think it does presently - UPDATE in OP

This is a discussion on Glock once stood for uber eliability; I don't think it does presently - UPDATE in OP within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 21bubba Tangle, have you ever been in a street fight? Have you ever been in a boxing match? Compare the two. In ...

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 208
Like Tree54Likes

Thread: Glock once stood for uber eliability; I don't think it does presently - UPDATE in OP

  1. #166
    VIP Member
    Array C hawk Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    W. Washington
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Tangle, have you ever been in a street fight? Have you ever been in a boxing match? Compare the two.
    In the words of Mike Tyson "Everyone's got a plan. Until they get hit"

    I bet Mr. Todd Jarrett wouldn't be so fancy after humping around a 100 pound load out and receiving pot shots all day....
    Ccccccc what? Ccccccccccc Hawks!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #167
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    I just don't understand folks buying into the Glock "Safe-Action" trigger concept and then trying to reverse-engineer the thing, attempting to approximate a single-action trigger. A corollary of some of these Glock trigger modifications points to much diminished trigger safety. Wasn't that trigger originally suppose to be one of Glock's claims to fame? Lightening it and shortening it would negate the purported design feature.
    It's not reverse engineering, Glock themselves make a 3.5# connector. It comes standard in the G34 and G35s that a several SWAT teams use.

    Some modifications could impact the safety of the trigger, but changing the over-travel on a Glock introduces no more of a safety issue than the over-travel adjustment on a 1911. Limiting over-travel in no way affects the safety of the gun. E.g. the Ghost Tactical is a 5.5# connector with the over-travel tab. It fires at exactly the same point, with exactly the same trigger weight, with the exact same pull distance as a stock connector. The only difference is the trigger stops moving after the shot breaks.

    As for lightening the trigger, even the Ghost Rocket or Ultimate at 3.5# does not give a 3.5# trigger pull weight. Glock specs the connector at 3.5# by measuring the pull weight from the very tip of the trigger rather than near the midpoint of the trigger. To the finger, it still results in a heavier trigger than a 1911 or a SA on a revolver, or the SA on a semi for that matter. Also consider that in a DA/SA semi, The second shot is much shorter and lighter than the first. The SA of a DA is about 4.5#; a Glock with a 3.5# measures heavier than that. At least when measured just below the midpoint of the trigger.

    The claim to fame for the Glock trigger was not weight, reset, 1911-likeness, etc. It was one thing - the same consistent trigger pull from the first shot to the last. Prior to Glock there were only two choices in semis - DA/SA or SA with a thumb safety. And there may have been a few DAO semis but they were no where near in common use as the other two. Then Glock came along with another choice, a short travel, light pull DAO, that felt like a SAO.

    The lighter connectors don't negate a design feature, after all Glock uses a 3.5# connector in their tactical models. The lighter connector enhances the design rather than negating anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ...Are we depending on our Glocks, so equipped, for personal protection?
    Absolutely, just like we're depending on 4.5# ( and less in some models) triggers on 1911s. It is interesting that a Glock trigger with a 3.5# connector is not as light as many SD based 1911 triggers or SA revolver triggers; the Glock trigger has a longer pull than a 1911 trigger and a SA revo trigger; and a much longer reset than a 1911 trigger.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ... Or, are these, and other trigger modifications that are on the market, intended for competition only? I personally have no use for Glock pistols but do like reading here on the Forum about what the Glock folks are doing. I depend on the Forum for my Glock reading. It is the only place I keep up with what is going on in the Glock world. It is probably the very best place to see the "big picture" with all things Glock.
    There are Glock trigger mods that are intended for competition only, and are stated as such. An example would be a 3.5# Ghost Rocket connector (with over-travel limit) and a Wolff Gunspring reduced power spring sets. The Ghost Rocket with stock springs are for SD.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    Zaci, I agree. I never make any spring modifications to my revolvers. They just have to "wear in" and shooting use and dry-firing does a good job on double-action revolvers.
    If we are depending on these "high speed low drag" trigger modifications on our carry Glocks then how could we frown on the person who determines to carry his 1911 loaded, safety off and grip safety disabled? Perhaps the Glock would offer some increased "drop" protection over the 1911 but I wouldn't want to be in close proximity to a loaded Glock, equipped with these triggers, when it was dropped on it's butt or back end.

    Please bring some of us up to speed on the safety aspects of these trigger modifications.[/QUOTE]
    There's a pretty big difference. In the case of carrying a 1911 with the safety off, a safety has been, in effect, disabled. In the case of the lighter Glock triggers, and remember a lighter Glock trigger is still heavier than many SD 1911s and just about any revo SA trigger, no safeties have been altered in any way. All safety features are still 100% in place and functional.

    As far as dropping a Glock with a lighter trigger, the trigger safety is the safety, along with the drop safety in the trigger housing and trigger bar, not in the trigger pull weight. The trigger safety has to be disengaged by the finger (or something) before the trigger can move rearward. If the trigger can't move rearward, the internal drop safety remains engaged.

    If it's of any help, I'll have to kill you after I tell you this, but Blackwater issues Glock 19s equipped with Ghost Rockets to their personnel. Or they used to; I haven't had an update recently.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    Zaci, I agree. I never make any spring modifications to my revolvers. They just have to "wear in" and shooting use and dry-firing does a good job on double-action revolvers.
    I took a 686 revo to the Gunsight 5-day Advanced Tactics Pistol course. I had already lightened the trigger, both DA and SA. I informed my instructor, a former Border Patrol agent that carried a revolver for duty. I asked him to shoot my modified 686. He did and replied, "That's just about perfect."

    I asked about the legal implications. He said that many, many LEO modify their triggers. He said that since I was a Gunsite alumni, that if I was ever taken to court in a justified shooting and the trigger issue came up, Gunsite would send expert witnesses free of charge to defend the trigger modification.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  4. #168
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    It's not really about audible reset, it's about the tactile reset. My mind uses the tactility of the reset as a springboard for each successive shot.

    That's why Glocks and 1911s are so popular, I think.


    BTW, I always knew what I was doing with my trigger press, but it was Tangle's blog that defined it for me: tactile reset me gusta mucho
    Absolutely!
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  5. #169
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by C hawk Glock View Post
    In the words of Mike Tyson "Everyone's got a plan. Until they get hit"
    The irony is that Mike Tyson trained diligently for a fight and had a plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by C hawk Glock View Post
    ...I bet Mr. Todd Jarrett wouldn't be so fancy after humping around a 100 pound load out and receiving pot shots all day....
    You might be surprised at what Todd Jarrett can do.

    But who carries a 100 pound pack and receives pot shots all day? Are we now going to bring military operations into the thread too?

    In my Blackwater 5-day Level II Pistol course, we had a drill submitted by a real Blackwater contractor taking the required 'in-service-training-update'. We lined up about 30 yards from the shoot line which was about 15 yds from two plate racks. We were lined up in two teams. At the whistle the first in each team had to run to the shoot line, stop, draw and fire one shot at the plate rack. Didn't matter if you hit or missed, you only got one shot. Then you ran back to the team and the next person went. This continued until all the plates were down and there were quite a few of them. The losers had to repaint all the steel targets.

    It introduced some adrenaline, got the heart pumping, and created some stress to help us see changes as stress levels go up. It was a fun drill!

    But the real stress comes from FOF scenario training. If you let your mind get into the role, it's amazing. I remember one FOF I was in that was so real, I mentioned to my instructor I was having to remember to breathe! And I was, my breathing control had become conscious.

    In another FOF scenario a 'cook' was being threatened by an armed BG threatening to shoot him. He already had the gun out, the shooting was imminent. The setting was a restaurant. I was in the rest room and came out to find the customers on their knees, yep, there were real people present. I realize what's about to happen so I shoot the BG. About that time I feel the sting of a Simunitions round on my hand. The guy had a buddy that was in the very same position as the customers - he looked like a customer. I wheeled and hit the guy three times and the instructor even commented, "Wow, you can shoot a Sig." I had been bemoaning not having my Sig for the course, I had decided to use a 686 and I couldn't shoot it as well. In the FOF drill I chose a Sig, and the results showed.

    But, I essentially failed the drill; never again did I over look the buddy scenario.

    In another FOF scenario drill, a BG was threatening a cashier, again with customers in the 'store'. The student, not me this time, decided to intervene and shot the BG. The BGs buddy that suddenly appeared shot the student. By this time the BG had wheeled around and was shooting the student. So here is this student and two BGs standing toe-to-toe in a street fight shooting each other as fast as they could. How would you rate the performance of the student?

    In another FOF scenario, 'we're' in a restaurant, seated at a table when a guy comes in ranting and raving and waving a club wanting to know where his girlfriend is. He slams the club down on the table in front of me and it was clear he was just getting started. I thought, I'm gonna have to shoot this guy, and then thought, wait use your training and tactics to deal with this - maybe there's a better way. I said, "Hey I got a glimpse of two women going out the back door, maybe they went out to smoke. Of course there were no women. I said, "They just went out, you can catch them if you hurry. Maybe your girlfriend was one of the women."

    He took off to the back door; I got everyone safely out before he could get back. Later I discovered, as in was told, that one of the guys I 'saved' was his buddy. Still think all that training goes out the window?

    Wanna hear about your broken down auto on the side of the road when 'help' arrives? How about the man you see with a shotgun just outside your remote, isolated cabin?

    The guy that's kneeling over a bloody body with a knife in his hand? I got shot in that one too, but not by his buddy, by him. I broke a training rule.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  6. #170
    Senior Member Array AZ Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun, AZ
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    If it's of any help, I'll have to kill you after I tell you this, but Blackwater issues Glock 19s equipped with Ghost Rockets to their personnel. Or they used to; I haven't had an update recently.
    Man... Now I have to buy a Ghost Rocket connector!?

    Seriously, though, thanks for all this information, Tangle. It's been incredibly helpful.
    Move. Shoot. Survive. ― The "Unofficial" Suarez International Doctrine

    “The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress and grows brave by reflection.” ― Thomas Paine

  7. #171
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,986
    OK, if this modification is concerned with over-travel only rather than lightening the trigger then I understand it. I loathe over-travel which is the main reason Ruger LCR revolvers don't cut it for me. If I was to get a Glock that I intended to shoot I'd be for minimizing over-travel. Why hasn't Glock itself done more in this regard, providing such features as standard on all their products? Does it have something to do with a perceived risk and product liability?


    "As for lightening the trigger, even the Ghost Rocket or Ultimate at 3.5# does not give a 3.5# trigger pull weight. Glock specs the connector at 3.5# by measuring the pull weight from the very tip of the trigger rather than near the midpoint of the trigger. "


    So all 3.5 lb. triggers don't give the same pull weight? When is 3.5 lbs. not 3.5 lbs.? Bit duplicitous isn't it to conveniently take weight measurements out on the end of the trigger, the point where leverage is most advantageous? And Glock triggers are deemed more beneficial for shooting use if lightened. Modifications for lighter triggers are being marketed as needful.



    "The claim to fame for the Glock trigger was not weight, reset, 1911-likeness, etc. It was one thing - the same consistent trigger pull from the first shot to the last."


    So the Glock trigger's claim to fame is not the built-in safety feature of the design? Most quality firearms designs that post-date the development of the matchlock can boast of a consistent shot-to-shot trigger pull and the matchlock became outdated around 1500. It can't be said that the Glock trigger is uniquely consistent so that can't be a claim to fame. The Glock trigger would seem to be associated with simplicity of use by the operator and that is because of the safety's design. What about the "Safe-Action" trigger's obviating the need for an external safety or is that just a side benefit of the design?

    Though I 'm no Glock fan, I do think there is far too much made of negligent discharges concerning the Glock. Folks' gun-handling skills, and the lack thereof, are on display anytime a ND occurs. However, where there's smoke, there's fire, and a kernel of truth is likely buried within all the internet-borne rumors about Glock NDs. The trigger design could be an accessory to the inevitable human failings that will occur. How much could a lighter Glock trigger contribute the increased possibility of a discharge? Any at all? When the safety feature is integrated into the trigger function than it becomes part of that trigger, the function of which is primarily to trigger a shot. Lightening a trigger to make it easier to trigger a shot has to have an inevitable down side if the trigger safety is all one has.


    "As for lightening the trigger, even the Ghost Rocket or Ultimate at 3.5# does not give a 3.5# trigger pull weight. Glock specs the connector at 3.5# by measuring the pull weight from the very tip of the trigger rather than near the midpoint of the trigger. "


    I'd have to play with a Glock modified with these tricked out triggers to be more conversant about them but it seems that Glock fans are no different than fans of other systems in that they strive mightily to "have their cake and eat it too," all while attempting to eliminate any argument that could be raised against their choice of handgun designs. If it takes aftermarket modifications to accomplish this goal then so be it and thus we arrive at a cottage industry, same as the cottage industry that profits off of the guys who feel compelled to rehabilitate their 1911s.

    It was only a matter of time.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  8. #172
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    403
    If you don't use the trigger as a "finger rest" then the whole issue is largely moot. The safety rules can be boiled down to 2 things...
    1. Don't do dumb stuff with your muzzle
    2. Keep finger off trigger until you want things to get loud.

    Assuming the gun is "drop safe" (And all glocks are drop safe) then the "accidents" are really traced back to what? The trigger getting pulled when it was not supposed to. That is just as likely to happen with a 5.5lb trigger as it is with a 3.5-4.5 lb trigger.

    That is a training issue...not a mechanical issue.

    As for reliability ...keep them reasonably clean and lubed and shoot them with a solid grip (any auto pistol can malfunction with a weak grip) and they will be as reliable as can be reasonably expected.

    Were there some issues with Gen 4 9mm guns to begin with? Yes just like there were issues with 40 cal gen 2 guns to begin with. Why? The first 40s were essentially G17s with a 40 cal barrel. The original design was built around 9...not 40. So the different caliber (and operating pressure) necessitated some changes. The Gen 4 guns were built around 40 first and then adapted for 9mm. Same thing...40s seemed to work fine and 9s were having issues initially.

    Having said that...I can't remember the last time I had a malfunction with one of my glocks. In fact my newest , a G17 Gen 4 has about 700 rounds through it and has yet to have its first malfunction.
    DRM likes this.
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  9. #173
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruel Hand Luke View Post
    If you don't use the trigger as a "finger rest" then the whole issue is largely moot. The safety rules can be boiled down to 2 things...
    1. Don't do dumb stuff with your muzzle
    2. Keep finger off trigger until you want things to get loud.

    Assuming the gun is "drop safe" (And all glocks are drop safe) then the "accidents" are really traced back to what? The trigger getting pulled when it was not supposed to. That is just as likely to happen with a 5.5lb trigger as it is with a 3.5-4.5 lb trigger.

    That is a training issue...not a mechanical issue.

    As for reliability ...keep them reasonably clean and lubed and shoot them with a solid grip (any auto pistol can malfunction with a weak grip) and they will be as reliable as can be reasonably expected.

    Were there some issues with Gen 4 9mm guns to begin with? Yes just like there were issues with 40 cal gen 2 guns to begin with. Why? The first 40s were essentially G17s with a 40 cal barrel. The original design was built around 9...not 40. So the different caliber (and operating pressure) necessitated some changes. The Gen 4 guns were built around 40 first and then adapted for 9mm. Same thing...40s seemed to work fine and 9s were having issues initially.

    Having said that...I can't remember the last time I had a malfunction with one of my glocks. In fact my newest , a G17 Gen 4 has about 700 rounds through it and has yet to have its first malfunction.
    Hey Randy!

    First, I agree completely about the trigger issue, it bears repeating, "Assuming the gun is "drop safe" (And all glocks are drop safe) then the "accidents" are really traced back to what? The trigger getting pulled when it was not supposed to. That is just as likely to happen with a 5.5lb trigger as it is with a 3.5-4.5 lb trigger."

    As far as the reliability issues, I simply don't know what to think anymore. I have a G17 Gen 4 with 450 flawless rounds through it and dearly love the gen 4. I don't know if you saw my second post related to this a mere 12 days or so after this one, where I stated Glock has the late gen 3 and gen 4 problems resolved:

    Have the changes resolved the Glock Gen 4 issues – YES – here's why I think so...

    Now, a mere 3 days later, I'm reading once again of case in the head problems, soft ejection problems, and the diverse suggestions for the 'fix' is troubling. It's almost like, 'just when you think it's safe to go back in the water'...

    I'm now reading of late model Glocks developing problems at the 600 - 1000 round count. I just don't know what to think right now. It does make me wonder though, if in the next 500 or so rounds if I'm gonna see problems develop in my G17 gen 4.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  10. #174
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    For example, what chance do you think you'd have against a BG that had the shooting skills and techniques of Todd Jarrett?
    Steel targets don't move and shoot back.
    21bubba likes this.

  11. #175
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Steel targets don't move and shoot back.
    So how do you train Az? Do your targets shoot at you?

    Let us be mindful that Todd's training isn't a limiting factor, it is enabling. He can do anything you can do and more. Don't you think Todd knows as much about the street as you do, and more?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  12. #176
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    OK, if this modification is concerned with over-travel only rather than lightening the trigger then I understand it. I loathe over-travel which is the main reason Ruger LCR revolvers don't cut it for me. If I was to get a Glock that I intended to shoot I'd be for minimizing over-travel. Why hasn't Glock itself done more in this regard, providing such features as standard on all their products? Does it have something to do with a perceived risk and product liability?
    I have no idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ..."As for lightening the trigger, even the Ghost Rocket or Ultimate at 3.5# does not give a 3.5# trigger pull weight. Glock specs the connector at 3.5# by measuring the pull weight from the very tip of the trigger rather than near the midpoint of the trigger. "

    So all 3.5 lb. triggers don't give the same pull weight? When is 3.5 lbs. not 3.5 lbs.? Bit duplicitous isn't it to conveniently take weight measurements out on the end of the trigger, the point where leverage is most advantageous?
    As far as I know all 3.5# connectors give approximately the same trigger pull. I can't say why Glock used the tip of the trigger, maybe it was to make the trigger 'look' as light as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ..."The claim to fame for the Glock trigger was not weight, reset, 1911-likeness, etc. It was one thing - the same consistent trigger pull from the first shot to the last."

    So the Glock trigger's claim to fame is not the built-in safety feature of the design?
    All guns of the era were deemed to be safe. I don't see that Glock had any choice but to extol the safety. All other guns safety were understood; the Glock was a whole new concept.

    But the uniqueness was not the safety, all guns of the era were had 'safeties' and were safe, the uniqueness of the Glock was the SA-like DA trigger than no other gun had.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ... Most quality firearms designs that post-date the development of the matchlock can boast of a consistent shot-to-shot trigger pull...
    No, they cannot. I believe I stated that other than the SA with a thumb safety, the guns in the Glock intro era were mostly DA/SA, e.g. the S&W model 39. The first shot was a long, heavy pull. The second shot was much shorter and lighter. The trigger pull Glock's 'Safe Action' was consistent from the first shot to the last. I know of no semi-auto at the time that had a short, light DA trigger that felt like a SA.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ...How much could a lighter Glock trigger contribute the increased possibility of a discharge? Any at all? When the safety feature is integrated into the trigger function than it becomes part of that trigger, the function of which is primarily to trigger a shot. Lightening a trigger to make it easier to trigger a shot has to have an inevitable down side if the trigger safety is all one has.
    You mean kinda like the SA trigger in a revo? It has no external safety, it is designed to be shot in SA, and probably is far more than DA, and the SA revo trigger is both shorter and lighter that a lightened Glock trigger.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    ...I'd have to play with a Glock modified with these tricked out triggers to be more conversant about them but it seems that Glock fans are no different than fans of other systems in that they strive mightily to "have their cake and eat it too," all while attempting to eliminate any argument that could be raised against their choice of handgun designs. If it takes aftermarket modifications to accomplish this goal then so be it and thus we arrive at a cottage industry, same as the cottage industry that profits off of the guys who feel compelled to rehabilitate their 1911s.
    The same is true with revos. People customize them to their desire. There's no cake and eat it too, nor any effort to eliminate some argument. Although I have made an effort to resolve misconceptions about the 3.5# connector in a Glock. I did mention that Glock 34s and 35s do come standard with 3.5 lb connectors and some SWAT teams use them that way. I mentioned that no safety features were affected and that they are 100% in place and fully functional. I mentioned that Blackwater issues, or did, G19s with Ghost Rockets in them.

    I guess I'm not seeing the issue you have with the Glock 3.5# connector.

    Sure there are cottage industries to cater to those that want more from their gun than stock. The same is true for revolvers, there are guys that do all kinds of things to revolvers for their customers.

    If you're thinking it's wrong for a guy to customize his gun in some way then we'll all have to be wrong.

    As much as I like the Gen 4 Glock, I'm having a real yearning to get back to my Sig P229R DAK. I like a lot of guns. I've modified the trigger on the P229 DAK as well. I modified the trigger on my P226 Elite SRT because it wasn't resetting correctly. I'm also going to lighten it. I can shoot if faster and more accurately. That may not mean a thing to someone else, but then I'm the one shooting it, so does mean something to me.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  13. #177
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    So how do you train Az? Do your targets shoot at you?

    Let us be mindful that Todd's training isn't a limiting factor, it is enabling. He can do anything you can do and more. Don't you think Todd knows as much about the street as you do, and more?
    After being in situations both professionally and as a civilian I have opened my eyes and changed the way I train. IDPA is a game. It has it's purpose, but to keep referencing IDPA and correlating it to self defense training is absurd. I have met many a great target shooter that has been stunned when they got put on their seat warmer during a true FOF training class. Todd is the best ever I bow down to Todd. World champion game player with firearms. if you don't shoot IDPA you aren't anything. Happy now?

  14. #178
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,669
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    After being in situations both professionally and as a civilian I have opened my eyes and changed the way I train. IDPA is a game. It has it's purpose, but to keep referencing IDPA and correlating it to self defense training is absurd. I have met many a great target shooter that has been stunned when they got put on their seat warmer during a true FOF training class. Todd is the best ever I bow down to Todd. World champion game player with firearms. if you don't shoot IDPA you aren't anything. Happy now?
    Nobody has 'correlated' anything to anything. You said steel targets don't shoot back as if that was some unique feature of competition. Very few people that shoot and train have targets that shoot back at them.

    You seem to want to 'prove' that an untrained person has just as good of a chance in a gunfight as a guy that has done a lot of IDPA type competitive shooting. Competition provides settings and opportunities that most people could never experience otherwise. They learn about cover - how many people shooting at typical ranges are exposed to that? They learn about threat/innocent identification. They have stages that require them to shoot one-hand both strong and support hand. They improve their shooting skills, they get to shoot on the move sometimes at targets on the move. How many people at typical ranges can do all that?

    They often get to go through house clearing stages, how many range only shooters get to do that?

    Competition may not be equivalent to FOF or or SWAT training, but training via competition is a whole lot better than going to a typical range and standing in one place and shooting stationary paper targets, at known distances.

    So if you want to think that competition doesn't produce an improved shooter compared to 'range' shooting then that's your opinion. I happen to think the additional exposure and more challenging shooting is far better. I know LEO that go to competitions to hone skills. I know LEO trainers that encourage their officers to become involved in competitive shooting (action or IDPA-like). If nothing else it makes sure they're getting out and shooting. But because of the competitive setting, they also look for ways to improve.
    OD* and AZ Hawk like this.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  15. #179
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    403
    The better you can shoot...the better you can shoot...period.

    But shooting is just PART of it. And just because someone can shoot well does not necessarily mean they can fight well.

    The guys who know how to recognize situations developing, use their knowledge of tactics to exploit openings and gain better pre fight positioning and AND shoot like a champion is a tough guy to beat. This is the ideal...but that is not common.

    There ARE also people who have killed more people than small pox who don't shoot well. Mindset and a mean streak made them victorious.

    There ARE also "target shooters" who do NOT carry guns on a daily basis (if ever), do not attend training and who look at shooting sports like golf or bowling...as a hobby. These guys can shoot.... but little more.

    Then you will have the guys who are excellent shooters but who are not "bullet golfers" but martialists. These guys attend training (a lot) work H2H, knife, FOF etc, and who shoot competitively to test their shooting skills against other skilled shooters...NOT because they think IDPA or IPSC is "training". They shoot because they LIKE it and They LIKE grappling and they like mixing it up with training blades....

    Think about guys like Dave Harrington. Real life Delta operator AND world class shooter. Look at historical guys like Charles Askins. Won 2 World Championships in bullseye and killed more than any 5 men's share of opponents in real gunfights both in the Border Patrol and in WWII. Anyone think Askins would trade being a world class shooter for being a better cook when bullets were flying? Probably not.

    So while being able to shoot well is always better than not being able to shoot well....shooting is just a PIECE of a bigger puzzle.
    DRM likes this.
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  16. #180
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    Nobody has 'correlated' anything to anything. You said steel targets don't shoot back as if that was some unique feature of competition. Very few people that shoot and train have targets that shoot back at them.

    You seem to want to 'prove' that an untrained person has just as good of a chance in a gunfight as a guy that has done a lot of IDPA type competitive shooting. Competition provides settings and opportunities that most people could never experience otherwise. They learn about cover - how many people shooting at typical ranges are exposed to that? They learn about threat/innocent identification. They have stages that require them to shoot one-hand both strong and support hand. They improve their shooting skills, they get to shoot on the move sometimes at targets on the move. How many people at typical ranges can do all that?

    They often get to go through house clearing stages, how many range only shooters get to do that?

    Competition may not be equivalent to FOF or or SWAT training, but training via competition is a whole lot better than going to a typical range and standing in one place and shooting stationary paper targets, at known distances.

    So if you want to think that competition doesn't produce an improved shooter compared to 'range' shooting then that's your opinion. I happen to think the additional exposure and more challenging shooting is far better. I know LEO that go to competitions to hone skills. I know LEO trainers that encourage their officers to become involved in competitive shooting (action or IDPA-like). If nothing else it makes sure they're getting out and shooting. But because of the competitive setting, they also look for ways to improve.
    It's comments like this that i am responding to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    Plus, people frown on competition shooters, but IDPA, etc. is all about hits on target fast. What's different about defensive shooting? Isn't that exactly what we hope to do?
    But I am done arguing with someone who forgets what he posted. Seems like you got it all figured out. Good luck to you.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

glock 19 gen 3 erratic ejection
,
glock 20 gen 4 release date
,
glock 23 gen 4 upgrades
,
glock 23 upgrades
,
glock 32 gen 4 release date
,

glock dependability

,

glock gen 5 release date

,
glock mim extractor
,
glock quality
,
glock quality issues
,

jeff cooper glock

,

jeff cooper on glocks

Click on a term to search for related topics.