Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Clint Smith on hitting more stuff...


Recommended Posts

I was reading an article by Clint Smith on carrying a SAA for self protection.  The following is a paragraph from the article.  

 

"Yeah I know five shots isn’t a Glock or a 1911, then again I am not sure why I want or need more ammo? I know the “gunfights” forums talk about a lot of shooting, but is there a lot of hitting? If I don’t hit what I shoot at I’ll need lots of ammo. If I hit what I shoot at I won’t need a lot, so maybe I should consider shooting better, not always more? Do what you will because you will, but shooting more isn’t always the answer. Maybe all of us should consider hitting more stuff?"

 

Here's a link to the whole article:  https://gunsmagazine.com/guns/handguns/true-grit-2/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I took a tactical shooting course put on by 2 LAPD SWAT officers. This was in the 80’s and SWAT officers were permitted to use 1911 pistols. Most patrol officers used revolvers. I remember a guy saying something along the lines of not liking his revolver because of slow reloads and the one SWAT officer said “Faster reloads don’t mean squat if you’re not hitting what you’re aiming at. (Paraphrasing here) Learn to hit your target in a manner that incapacitates your opponent and reloads won’t be the main thing on your mind.”

 

I have always felt that “hitting” was much more important than “shooting”, even when I was in the Navy and during shipboard drills and security situations I grabbed a Remington 870 even when offered a 1911. I was a much better “hitter” with the shotgun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really love revolvers (I guess that's partially why I'm here), but the more and more shooting I do with law enforcement, the more I think that the revolver--even a double action revolver--is a very difficult tool to use for armed self defense in the 21st Century.  I really hesitate to say that since I have a whole safe full of them and they are very enjoyable to carry and shoot.  And I agree with others who say the capacity doesn't matter, 5-6 rounds is more than enough to solve most shooting problems that need solving.

 

If you look at the numbers in that article--almost 3 seconds to first shot--that is more than double the time the average gunfight lasts.  The timeline of violence is 2 rounds in 2 seconds.  Anything that would have happened after that really doesn't matter.  In the dark of night you might get one more second.

 

The problem for me is that it is much more difficult to get fast hits on target with a revolver, both due to the heavy and long trigger pull and the high bore axis compared to an automatic.  Yes, practice helps, and serviceable speed and accuracy can be obtained, but as to being able to minimize time to first shot and have an accurate and fast follow up shot, it is much harder to do with a revolver.

 

Maybe this sounds like rambling or sacrilege given where this writing will appear, but I don't think police officers are carrying automatics because they really need the capacity or ballistics, or fast reloading, although there are circumstances where that can be an advantage.  I think the reason they're carrying automatics is because they can be drawn and fired more quickly and easily for a first shot, and the ability to get a single accurate round on target faster than the other guy is the most important determinant in winning a gunfight.

 

For self defense or law enforcement, we are almost always reactive.  That puts us behind the power curve.  We need every advantage we can get.  1-2 seconds might be the rest of your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago there was a bank robbery in So. Cal.  FBI got involved with local police. They determined who did it and went after them. They corner them, 2, on street and blocked the road. Gun fight ensues, criminals gave up. 0ver 400 rounds fired and no one was hit!. Now thats good shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

 0ver 400 rounds fired and no one was hit!.


Suppressive fire, I guess.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I entered into law enforcement during the heyday  of the S&W and Python revolver.  Training emphasis was placed upon trigger control and  hits.  Myself and several other officers enrolled in Gunsite and participated in a week long revolver school that was taught by the one and only Jeff Cooper.  It was time and money well spent, thus the reason why I have been back more than once.  At the end of the school we did learn the merits of the 1911 by the master himself.  Perhaps that is why when I had to transition from revolver to auto, I refused that black polymer framed pistol and went straight to the 1911.  To this day I am very comfortable with any revolver, from big bore to those iddy biddy 22's.  Bottom line it is all about hits and consistent hits.  I have been known to only carry a revolver while on horse back and when a foot in the back country.  I guess I am old school  but the last gun that took my money was a 5 shot, 3 inch 44 special revolver.  I am still looking for that Colt Diamondback in 22LR..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

I was reading an article by Clint Smith on carrying a SAA for self protection.  The following is a paragraph from the article.  

 

"Yeah I know five shots isn’t a Glock or a 1911, then again I am not sure why I want or need more ammo? I know the “gunfights” forums talk about a lot of shooting, but is there a lot of hitting? If I don’t hit what I shoot at I’ll need lots of ammo. If I hit what I shoot at I won’t need a lot, so maybe I should consider shooting better, not always more? Do what you will because you will, but shooting more isn’t always the answer. Maybe all of us should consider hitting more stuff?"

 

Here's a link to the whole article:  https://gunsmagazine.com/guns/handguns/true-grit-2/

 

 

I just got that article in an email for Wheelgun Wednesday. I love reading all the articles from those emails. I guess I am a revolver guy at heart. 
 

Here’s another interesting article that I received in that email that has me pondering the purchase of a Bianchi X-15 shoulder rig for my model 25. 
https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/maybe-harry-was-right/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have three X-15s. One for a 6-inch Python, one for six and a half inch 29, and one for a 1911. They are sweet.

 

There were a couple of statements in that article that puzzled me. Actually they were picture captions.

 

Embarrassing pose? Not proud of this sort of picture? Why? Because the gun is loaded and it's pointed at the cameraman? Or because he's got his finger on the trigger and that's an "oh my God no no no no no no no no no never do that" thing?

 

Maybe they're dummy cartridges. We don't know. It doesn't matter though. Internet commandos would jump his ass.

 

As for the finger on the trigger, until Herr Glock came along with his "safe action trigger" with the Dingus in the middle of it, everybody had their finger on the trigger. But if you have a trigger with a dingus in it it's not safe to have your finger on the trigger. Instead of people realizing that and not messing with guns with this dangerous trigger, they decided it was better to retrain the entire shooting population.

 

The other one was the picture of the old and new holster.

 

>The new X15 had some solid design improvements<

 

Really? What are they? Why would you make a statement like that and not follow up?

 

The only "design improvements" that I can see is they put a safety strap on it. That's not a design improvement. That's a lawyer requirement, I betcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alpo said:

The new X15 had some solid design improvements<

 

Really? What are they? Why would you make a statement like that and not follow up?

 

The only "design improvements" that I can see is they put a safety strap on it. That's not a design improvement. That's a lawyer requirement, I betcha.

I was wondering the same thing. Gun writers always seem to do that crap so they have something else to write about later on, I guess. Personally, I find it annoying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have expressed my opinion of the SAA for self defense before. The number of rounds it holds has never been an objection. O5her factors have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

I have expressed my opinion of the SAA for self defense before. The number of rounds it holds has never been an objection. O5her factors have.

 

I think that's probably the right answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right answer is to carry and use what you feel the most confident with and the weapon you trust most regardless of what anyone else carries or thinks. The gun you carry is your own personal choice. If you choose wrong you may live to regret it…or not. ;)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that the link no longer takes you to the original story. Apparently it is going to change every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MidwayUSA has a Hunter set of leather suspenders with a derringer holster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.