KR Training Assistant Instructor, Tom Hogel has penned a good article about the importance of sighting in your handgun.

 

With the tremendous amount of new interest in shooting, there seems to be a piece of old gunny knowledge that somehow has not been passed along to the current crop of new shooters – the necessity to “zero” a new pistol or revolver and then to recheck it from time to time.  There seems to be this mistaken assumption that a new gun is going to be able to shoot groups and that the sights are going to be adjusted correctly right from the box.

 

Read the whole article, as it contains much wisdom from a seasoned instructor.

Doing some dry fire work with my handgun and two things hit me… both taken from the Rangemaster Defensive Shotgun class I took a couple of months ago. My head, and how to make Rolling Thunder a better drill.

First, my head.

When I get into a shooting position, I always end up pushing my head out and down… sticking it out/forward and down. Why? I don’t know, but I do it and I know lots of other people do it too. Givens worked to get us to stop doing that: bring the shotgun up to your cheek. You ended up in a far better shooting position when you did. As well, it’s less movement, and less things to have to get in line to get a good sight picture and then a fast shot off.

I need to remember to stop doing that when I draw my handgun… any firearm really, but right now I’m working handgun and need to just not move my head… bring the gun up to my line of sight, not bring the gun up and my head down and try to have them meet somewhere.

To experiment, I did a bunch of dry press-outs, some with my head held normally, some with my head going out and down. No wonder I’ve had a dog of a time lately with getting my index… there’s just too much movement and things going on when the head also moves. With my head still my index and front-sight acquisition was exponentially better. *sigh*  Live and learn.

Second, the Rolling Thunder drill.

I realized that we didn’t run that drill as well as we could have. The goal of the class was fundamental manipulations and keeping the gun running. Everyone was focused on being able to get their required number of shots off when it was their turn to go. If it came to someone’s turn and they weren’t ready to go, the person would continue to work to load the shotgun until they had all the shells in and then went. It shouldn’t have been that way. If it’s your turn to go, you should go in whatever state your shotgun is in, and if there weren’t enough shells at the time, then you just keep doing the speed reloads until you get there. So for instance, you are to do 4 shots but your turn comes and you’ve only got 2 in the gun (one in the chamber, one in the magazine). GO! Shoot the two you have, then load one through the ejection port, chamber and shoot, load another through the ejection port, chamber and shoot.

Why do it this way? IMHO, this would be an improved way to run the drill because it won’t just be about going when YOU want to go, it’ll be about going when you HAVE to go, which is more likely how a gunfight would go — you really don’t get to choose. That said, I would say the drill should first just be run without discussing this approach and see how people do it, likely they’re will be a long pause between shooters while “next shooter” finishes a complete reload before shooting. After everyone goes, bring up the topic about having to go when it’s time to go no matter what the state of things, but continuing to finish the fight, if you will. Both approaches to the drill are legit and both end up working a slightly different set of skills. I think what’s key is to raise the issue and sow the seed in people’s minds so they work to practice both ways and get the pressure of both approaches.

The latest NSSF “Pull The Trigger” newsletter contained a link to a video discussing concealed carry choices for women

I’m mixed on the advice it gives.

Maybe it’s just a short video with limited time and they can’t touch on all the points. But given the video is geared towards women (and even produced by women), I was surprised the first thing they talked about was semi-auto vs. revolver and not the issue of gun fit. Most guns tend to be made for larger people and let’s be honest, most women aren’t of the larger variety, especially when it comes to hands. It’s far more important for a woman to find a gun that fits her and that she can shoot well, that she then enjoys to shoot, which then will enable her to seek training or try practical shooting matches. If the gun doesn’t fit, if she can’t shoot it well, if it hurts, if it’s difficult, the shooter will get frustrated and give up and won’t seek the help and education they need.

Here’s a good guide for “how to choose a gun”.

Kay comments how revolvers are simpler and semi-autos a little more complex. This is true. She then says “with the semi-automatic you’re going to have to do a little more training with it.” Well… yes and no. Yes because actions such as fixing a malfunction are more involved with a semi-automatic than a revolver; you will have to learn how to do those things. No, because that long, heavy trigger pull on a revolver is hard to shoot well. Again, if we’re talking people with small hands, with weaker hands (honestly, how many of you pull 10-15# weights with your index finger), the revolver will be harder to shoot and shoot well so that aspect is going to require more training and practice as well. Both styles of handguns will require training, a lot common to both, but certainly they each have their own unique aspects that must be trained so you can be proficient with the tool.

I do like how they suggest women try out practical shooting. No, it’s not tactical and defensive or anything — it’s a game. However, you do learn useful skills and it may be the only way you can practice skills like shooting and moving, shooting moving targets, shooting multiple targets, etc. (all depending what’s available to you at ranges in your area).

Some Seattle police officer had a big slip-up, leaving his patrol rifle on the back of his patrol car and even driving off with it still there.

But what really stood out to me was the choice of words used in the article:

SEATTLE — The Seattle Police Department says they are “very embarrassed” after an assault rifle was left unattended on the back of a patrol car Monday night.

First published by The Stranger, Nick Gonzales snapped a picture of the menacing-looking rifle on the trunk of a Seattle Police car.

“Assault rifle”…. no, it’s just a rifle, and actually when an AR-15 is used by the police the politically correct term is “patrol rifle”. “Menacing-looking”. Only to you.

I’m not excusing what happened, but the bias of and fear within the author is evident.

Hoplophobia, alive and well.

Dear Customer at the Academy Gun Counter:

Your gun handling sucks.

You have almost no awareness of where that muzzle is pointed, or maybe you intended to point it in every possible direction in 3-D space — including yourself; I don’t know. I say “almost no awareness” because when you decided it was time to point the gun in some direction so you could look at the sight picture, you did seem to care about where the muzzle was pointed… but you still pointed it in less than optimal directions, because tho you can’t see anyone in that aisle now, it doesn’t take but a blink for someone to come around that endcap. Furthermore, all that cardboard and thin shelving steel isn’t going to stop a bullet — safe direction doesn’t stop where your line of sight does, safe direction means where the bullet will come to rest. The safest direction would have been at those huge gun safes behind the counter, which no bullet would penetrate and while it might cause a little lead splatter, that’s certainly more acceptable because the bullet would stop and we would know where it would stop.

I tried to step out of the line of the muzzle, but you kept flipping the guns in every direction possible, and apparently invented a few new directions. I’m not one of those little Chinese contortionist girls so I just couldn’t move well enough to avoid how you flashed that muzzle about.

It didn’t help that your finger was constantly on the trigger.

I so wanted to engage you and correct you and enlighten you about your poor gun handling skills. But I know how the conversation would have went.

Me: Excuse me sir, please keep that gun pointed in a safe direction.

Customer: (Defensively) It’s OK. It’s unloaded.

Me: Col. Cooper would disagree with you.

And I would repeat both Col. Cooper’s 4 rules and the NRA’s 3 rules, whichever set you follow you are egregiously violating. I would attempt to politely educate about better skills… but it wouldn’t work. Your ego would be bruised, you would become defensive for being publicly corrected, and I’ll admit… why would you take any correction from me? There’s nothing you could perceive that puts me in a position of authority on the matter; I just look like some young long-haired dude that’s correcting you. Your lengthy conversation with the employee demonstrates you read a lot of gun magazines, so hey… you’ve got all the knowledge you need, and I don’t appear to be anyone worth listening to.

Granted, I could be assuming too much and maybe you would be willing to learn and improve. If that’s the case, show up at KR Training; there are lots of classes and I’d recommend you start at Basic Pistol 2. There’s a class on July 9, still open for enrollment. If you do show up there, I’ll gladly shake your hand, look you in the eye, apologize for being wrong, and thank you for coming out.

Sincerely,

John Daub, who is tired of having guns pointed at him.

P.S.: Mr. Employee behind the Academy Gun Counter: you suck for not being any better with your gun handling safety, thus I can’t expect you to have done anything about Mr. Customer’s failure.

P.P.S.: Mr. Employee, you think internal locks are a worthwhile feature? *sigh*