DA/SA Semi-auto's are stupid.

Double action pistols hit their stride in the 70's and 80's, and quickly became adopted by police agencies as a transition from revolvers. As seen with GLOCK, when something gets widely adopted by Police or Military, it legitimizes whatever that is and gets pretty desirable. Hell it's why my Dad owns a Ruger P89, a guy who's most modern pistol was a Ruger Blackhawk...Anyways, Double action exists today because it was adopted by people who were scared to trust people with single action pistols. It's a compromise design that puts safety ahead of everything else adopted by people who would probably rather have users running around with empty chambers (I.E. Military).

Then there's the whole two trigger pull weight thing. Which is the central issue. "That's not a problem, you can get good at it" is the typical response, almost always by some one defending a DA/SA purchase. The real question is, why should you have to? SA triggers are faster and crisper, DAO triggers are lighter than the DA pull and consistent, and striker fired pistols are also light and consistent. Bottom line, all have the benefit of one trigger pull.

Taking that a step farther if double action/ single action is so great, and is easy to train for, why not simplify things, and make it double action only, or single action only? Traditionally the path to success is found in finding the fastest, simplest ways to do things. Notice that in competition, revolver shooters don't thumb the hammer back after every shot, they simply shoot double action. Some are very, very fast and accurate. Just as much as anyone with a semi auto of any style. This leads me to further believe that DA/SA on a semi auto is superfluous at best.

In my opinion, any DA/SA pistol would be a better firearm if it picked one or the other, instead of some hermaphroditic concoction of both. Sure I, or almost anyone, can train up to the point it doesn't matter. But then... what's the point? If a DA/SA pistol can be shot just as well as a SAO, why spend any time and effort when you can just get a SAO? Nominally 1/15th of your trigger pulls are going to be DA anyways (or less). What advantage does the initial DA pull offer besides needing to train to overcome it to shoot the SA pulls that are the majority? Safety? The ability to carry hammer down? Really it seems like the largest benefit of DA/SA is for people that are scared to have the hammer back on a firearm, probably why they became so popular with police departments looking to PC it up.

In summary, DA/SA does neither DA/SA effectively, is made for people who are scared of cocked hammers, and incurs a training debt to have the same ability as people just starting on dedicated DAO/Striker or SA firearms.

Why I waste time arguing about self and home defence on gun forums.

My response to people settling for "what works" vs "what works better".



I spend a LOT of time, energy, money, and brainpower; training, analyzing, researching, interviewing and doing everything I can to be as proficient as I can with rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I love to learn "the big picture" of things, to look at things like systems, not individual components.

I like to share what I know so that people can judge it against what they know, and refute it, causing me to reanalyze and find out how strong my opinions base is. Or accept it and learn something new they can incorporate, or even just send them in a new direction of learning.

It's funny when you talk to regular shooters, vs competition shooters, because comp shooters (at least good, or progressing ones) are always looking for an edge. It's the adapt or die mentality.

In fact, that's the very reason we have modern handgun shooting technique. I don't see very many people on here saying that shooting aimed with two hands on the gun, in a modern style is "only a competition technique" and of no use for home defense.

So why don't more people carry that over into the life or death realm of SD/HD? I doubt any of us will ever know.

So when people say "X works just fine, you don't need Y" all I can do is laugh because shooting is a dynamic process. Stagnation means you get left behind. Settling for "what works" means you might miss out on whats better.

So that's what I do, and what I love. Share so that people may benefit, question what people say that may be a detriment.

And hope I do a good job of it!

It's only gay if you push back.

This is a modification from a response to a dude bagging on training styles.
 It's modified to make more sense as a blogpost. (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1503842_Chris_Costa_has_a_new_grip__Has_anyone_seen_this___.html&page=2 for the actual response and hilarity that is ARF) So, you know, deal with it.

I joined the Marines in 2000, and was introduced to using a magwell grip during the MOUT package at ITB in SOI by our lead instructor, who previously had been part of SOTG's MOUT/CQB cadre.
We used it exclusively for that. That training and use and instruction went on through the fleet and other MOUT/CQB instruction packages. Probably because as Infantry we were training to fight in said style.
 
The level of training received by students is directly influenced by the motivation of the instructors. You can get a guy that wants to just put checks in boxes, or you can have an instructor like I did that is excited about what he knows, and wants to share it and crank out bad asses. What I learned in my MOUT package in SOI to this day is roughly what is still done by SF and SoF units. They have a lot more "flow" and less set piece stuff going on, but the fundamentals are still very similar. (There was an incident a long while back about training in the early days of the GWOT, where had the person had the same training I did, their life would be a lot different, and the shit thing, our roles could have been easily reversed).

Now lets look at training, and push back to new concepts.

In research and development, sometimes you have to try shit you know doesn't work, or don't think it will work in order to move on. Sometimes you get a surprise, and find out things actually DO work well (Sometimes it fails when you thought it was working too, never know). 

Having grown up a rather FUDD existence shooting, the magwell grip BLEW MY MIND. So quick, so snappy. You could have the muzzle down, bust a corner pop up and slay targets in heartbeats. Later as a civvie the "magpul" grip hit the public eye and I thought "phht gay, magwell grip is the way to go".

Because that's what I learned. So I was defensive.

Then a buddy  told me to try it, and it dawned on me, as an instructor I had been telling people for about a year that "be open to new concepts, try new things, don't stagnate... adapt or die".
So I tried it, and became a better shooter because of it (in the role it's meant for).


If it wasn't for trying new styles, experimenting, and pushing the state of the art, we'd still be shooting pistols with one hand, because using two hands is for women, and shooting rifles like we're on the offhand stage of a highpower match.

TL;DR Everyone should try shit before they bag on it, and just because you learned one way, doesn't mean it's the best way.  Stand by for a part two as the thread motivates me to write.(I'll prob clean this up in the morning too)

The line between Cockiness and Competance.

   So, ever since my time in the Marines, I've noticed a trend.  People that do jobs where the primary role is shooting people in the face, or causing other types of death and destruction tend to have a certain attitude about their jobs.  To outsiders, this can come across as being cocky, or arrogant.   Sometimes it just plain IS cocky and arrogant.  But, here's the thing.  In jobs like that you have to be to some extent. Either consciously, or sub-consciously to get yourself into the zone.  Sometimes that bleeds over into your normal life.


 
  My question for YEARS has been, where is the line drawn between confidence, and cockiness?
 My other question, is how much does perspective play a part? 

More on this later.

How CTD tried to save magazine prices... twice...

Panic buying sets in, magazines are purchased in record numbers;



"Hey, we're running out of supply from distributors, we better up the price to slow down orders and catch up".



"Fuck, they are still buying... better up the price to slow down demand.... hell demand is still rising and these guys are paying that much...?"




"Well, see how high you can go before sales taper, then back off a little, we'll drop the price when more things to sell exist, and people forget how we tried to help them by staunching demand. "



See, CTD just wanted to HELP end the craze. If other retailers would have joined in, it would have put the brakes to panic buying.

Comfort and shooting.

 For some reason, people always seem to think "oh, get what's comfortable and fits right".

They then tend to spread this "common sense" around.

The problem is, in shooting what is comfortable is not always fast, accurate or both.


Here's one example.  When I was in the Marines I did a lot of MOUT/ CQB training.  At the time, the position was almost an old school FBI crouch.  It was not comfortable, and would kill your back.  BUT, it provided a MASSIVELY stable position to move and shoot with.  


Same with hand guns. My big EAA Witness has two grip positions.  Comfortable and natural, or accurate.  Grab it the natural way, and everyone shoots low and left.  Grasp it with the strong hand rotated around the grip just a hair, into a very UN natural feeling position, and it shoots like a damn laser beam kicking out under 2" groups at 25 yards.


A third example is my Olympic small bore rifle, and by extension the traditional offhand position.
ABSURDLY uncomfortable, and literally horrible for your back, but lets you maintain very accurate shots.  In the case of smallbore, shooting rounds through the same hole, and high power, fist size groups rapid fire at 200 yards.


So basically it boils down to find out what works.

The grip angle debate.

I've recently saw two opposing viewpoints on ideal handgun grip angles.

It's been said that some grip angles allow different guns to point "naturally" for people.  Some angles point low on some guns, some high.


Others say it doesn't matter.



The TRUTH (because using that word adds a sense of importance to my opinion) is that there is no natural angle a handgun rests in your hand that you don't create yourself through training.  What "feels" right is muscle memory and can be changed.  That's why I can go from sucking at IDPA with a 1911, to sucking at IDPA with a revolver, I have the amazing ability to understand the importance of muscle memory, and that through repetition no matter what I shoot with will eventually always "point right".